PEOPLE v.

NOEL PRAJES

facts: the accused-appellants were accused of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 via an Information filed
with the RTC of Cebu.

The accused-appellants pleaded "not guilty" when arraigned. After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.[4]

According to the prosecution, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Cebu City received reports that the
accused-appellants were engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. Following surveillance operations conducted during the
last week of August 2002, a buy-bust operation was organized by the NBI for September 4, 2002.[5]

Thus, at around 1:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002, NBI's informant, Rene Sabayton (Sabayton) transacted with the
accused-appellants for a supposed buyer's purchase of shabu weighing 200 grams for P180,000.00.[6] At 4:00 p.m.,
the buy-bust team, headed by Senior Agent Atty. Angelito Magno (Atty. Magno) and composed of NBI Supervising
Agent Vicente Minguez (SA Minguez), Special Investigator Teodoro Saavedra (SI Saavedra), SI Ray Tumalon (SI
Tumalon), SI Danilo Garay and SA Rennan Oliva, proceeded to Kinasang-an, Pardo, Cebu City where the purchase
would be made. SI Tumalon was designated the poseur-buyer. Atty. Magno prepared the buy-bust money amounting
to P4,500.00, composed of nine P500.00 bills dusted with fluorescent powder and which were combined with boodle
money.[7]

As previously arranged with Sabayton, Prajes met up with Sabayton and SI Tumalon in a makeshift house in
Kinasang-an, where Mala later joined them. Since Prajes had not brought with him the illegal drugs to be sold, the
group proceeded to his father's house which was only 15 to 20 meters away from the makeshift house[8] and there,
SI Tumalon received the illegal drugs from Prajes.

While they were at the ground floor of the house, Prajes handed to SI Tumalon two packs of shabu having a total
weight of 100 grams. When SI Tumalon pointed out that he needed 200 grams, Prajes instructed Mala to produce
more stock. Mala left the house, then later came back with another pack, which he handed to SI Tumalon. Thereafter,
SI Tumalon gave one bundle of the buy-bust money to Prajes, and the other bundle to Mala.[9]

Upon the accused-appellants' receipt of the buy-bust money, SI Tumalon introduced himself to them as an NBI
agent. SI Tumalon made a "missed call" to SA Minguez's phone, the team's pre-agreed signal to indicate that the
sale had been consummated, and then arrested the accused-appellants.[10] Soon thereafter, the other members of
the buy-bust team arrived. The accused-appellants were handcuffed and brought to the NBI office, where their
photographs and fingerprints were taken.[11] At the NBI office, SI Tumalon handed the buy-bust money and three
packs of shabu to SI Saavedra, who placed his markings on the packs of shabu. SI Saavedra also prepared the
letter-request for examination of the illegal drugs, which he personally turned over to Chemist Rommel
Paglinawan[12] of the Forensic Chemistry Section, Central Visayas Regional Office of the NBI. A laboratory
examination of the three packs sold by the accused-appellants to SI Tumalon confirmed that the specimen contained
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. An ultraviolet examination performed by the NBI also confirmed the
presence of fluorescent powder on the accused-appellants' hands.

The accused-appellants denied the charge against them. Prajes claimed that at about 4:00 p.m. on September 4,
2002, he was sleeping at his house in Kinasang-an when a neighbor, Renante Paradero (Paradero), woke him up to
inform him that some persons were looking for him. He then proceeded to Paradero's house and there saw
Sabayton, whom he had previously met in a "sniffing session" and who had called him up at around 1:00 p.m. on
September 4, 2002 for the purchase of shabu. Sabayton was with two companions, who inquired from Prajes about
the purchase. Prajes, Sabayton and his two companions then proceeded to the house of Prajes' father, where Prajes
received the drugs from a person sent by a certain "Alex". Prajes handed the pack of shabu to Sabayton, then was
immediately handcuffed by SI Tumalon. Sabayton hit Prajes' handcuffed right hand with money that was brought by
the buy-bust team. Thereafter, Prajes was taken to the NBI Office.For Mala's defense, witness Magdalena Abarquez
claimed that at around 4:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002, she saw Mala enter the house of Prajes. When he tried to
leave the house, he was prevented by someone who was inside the house.[13]

Sabayton was called on the witness stand by the defense as a hostile witness. He claimed that he was arrested by
NBI operatives on September 3, 2002. While at the NBI office, the operatives asked for a gift or "regalo" by giving
names of persons whom they could arrest, in exchange for his freedom. Thus, he gave the name of Prajes and
coordinated with the latter for the drug purchase.[14] After Prajes presented the shabu to Sabayton during the buy-
bust operation, he called on Mala to test and sniff the shabu. Before the latter could do so, SI Tumalon pointed a gun
at the accused-appellants and handcuffed them. When Prajes refused to receive the buy-bust money, SI Tumalon
slapped the money on Prajes' handcuffed hands. Notwithstanding Sabayton's participation in the buy-bust which led
to the arrest of the accused-appellants, he was neither released from jail nor relieved from prosecution for his
violation of R.A. No. 9165

RTC of Cebu City, Branch 15, rendered a Decision[16] finding the accused-appellants guilty for violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165.CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.

Accused-appellants insist on the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused-
appellants also question the subject drugs' identity and the NBI's observance of the rule on the chain of custody.
They argue that it was unclear as to who actually marked the subject packs of shabu, and that there were no
photographs and physical inventory of the seized items, even when the same are required under the law.

issue:whether the contention of the accused is correct on the issue of chain of custody.

Held: On the issue of chain of custody, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that "[t]he apprehending team having
initial custody and control of the [seized] 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[.]" In relation thereto, Section 21 of the law's Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) provides in part:

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. x x x:

(a) x x x 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[.]

These "[s]tatutory 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."[21]

In a line of cases, the Court has nonetheless explained 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.'"[22] The limitation on chain of custody
is also recognized in the afore-quoted Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165's IRR, as it states that non-compliance with the
rules' requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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. In resolving drug cases, we then repeatedly emphasize that "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.'"[23]

On the issue of the subject drugs' marking as part of the chain of custody requirement, the accused-appellants point
out that SI Tumalon and SI Saavedra both named SI Saavedra as the one who marked the seized drugs, but
witnesses SA Minguez and Atty. Magno each testified that it was SI Tumalon and the forensic chemist, respectively,
who effected such marking. The Court, however, agrees with the CA's observation that although there were
conflicting accounts by the prosecution witnesses as to the person who actually marked the seized drugs, the failure
of SA Minguez and Atty. Magno to identify the said person could be readily explained by the fact that they had no
actual participation in the evidence's marking. As against their conflicting statements, what were significant were the
testimonies of SI Tumalon and SI Saavedra, being the persons who actually seized, endorsed and marked the
evidence. Both agreed that following the accused-appellants' arrest, the seized packs of shabu were handed by SI
Tumalon to SI Saavedra, who was the one who placed the markings on the evidence,[24] before the same were
brought to the laboratory for examination. As aptly explained by the appellate court:

SA Minguez may have incorrectly assumed that it was SI Tumalon, their poseur-buyer, who made the markings on
the packs of shabu that were confiscated in the ensuing confusion. However, SI Tumalon himself testified that he
turned-over the drugs to SA Saavedra. Atty. Magno's statement that it was "maybe our Forensic Chemist" who made
the markings on the three packs is inconsequential when considered with the positive testimonies of SI Tumalon and
SA Saavedra. SA Minguez and Atty. Magno assumed supporting roles. It was SI Tumalon who was in the thick of
things so to speak, as he was the poseur-buyer and he was the one who took the shabu from accused-appellants
and handed it to SA Saavedra for marking. Moreover, SA Saavedra's identification of his own handwriting puts any
doubt to rest.[25] (Citations omitted)

People vs. Sabdula, G.R. No. 184758, April 21, 2014

facts: Petition for review of the decison of The RTC which found appellant Sonny Sabdula y Amanda guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, 3 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002). The trial court imposed on him the penalty of life imprisonment.

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. 5 The prosecution presented Police Officer (PO) 2 Bernard Centeno at
the trial, while the testimonies of PO3 Joselito Chantengco and PO1 Alan Fortea became the subject of the parties’
stipulations. The appellant and Shirley Sabdula, on the other hand, took the witness stand for the defense.

The evidence for the prosecution established that in the morning of February 1, 2004, a confidential informant told the
members of the Central Police District (CPD) in Baler, Quezon City about the illegal drug activities of one alias
"Moneb" at a squatter’s area in San Roque II, Quezon City. Acting on this information, operatives of the Station
Intelligence and Investigation Branch, Baler Police Station 2, CPD formed a buy-bust team composed of PO2
Centeno (the designated poseur-buyer), PO1 Fortea, PO2 Rolando Daduya, PO1 Victor Porte, PO1 Louise Escarlan
and PO1 Noel de Guzman.6

At around 7:00 p.m., the buy-bust team and the informant went to the target area. When they arrived there, the
informant introduced PO2 Centeno as his "kumpare" to the appellant. PO2 Centeno asked the appellant if he could
"score" two hundred pesos worth of shabu. 7 The appellant responded by taking out a plastic sachet from his pocket,
and handing it to PO2 Centeno. PO2 Centeno in turn handed ₱200.00 to the appellant, and then gave the pre-
arranged signal.

As the other members of the buy-bust team were rushing to the scene, PO2 Centeno introduced himself as a police
officer and arrested the appellant. Afterwards, he frisked the appellant and recovered the buy-bust money from his
right pocket.8

The police thereafter brought the appellant to the Baler Police Station 2 for investigation. Upon arrival, PO2 Centeno
gave the seized plastic sachet to SPO2 Salinel who, in turn, handed it to PO3 Chantengco who made a request for
laboratory examination that PO3 Centeno brought, together with the seized item to the Central Police District Crime
Laboratory for analysis.9 Per Chemistry Report No. D-140-2004 of Engr. Leonard Jabonillo (the forensic chemist), the
submitted specimen tested positive for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).10
In his defense, the appellant testified that between 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. on January 29, 2004, he was on board a taxi at
C5 Road, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, when a group of about five (5) men pointed their guns at him and told him to
get out of the vehicle. After he alighted, the armed men told him to board a mobile car11 and brought him to the Baler
Police Station. At the station, the police asked him to remove his clothes, and confiscated his wallet, bracelet, cap
and ₱300.00. The police then told him that he would be detained for drug charges and that he would be jailed for 40
years.12

Shirley’s testimony was summarized by the RTC as follows:

x x x On February 1, 2004, she was at home when her brother was brought to Precinct 2, Baler[,] Quezon City. On
January 29, 2004, at about 11:00 p.m., she received a text message from Allan Fortea, a policeman, telling her to call
a certain number if she loves her brother. The next day, at about 8:00 a.m., she called Fortea at the number he gave
her. He told her that his brother at Station 2 Baler Quezon City and asked her to produce ₱200,000.00 as ransom for
her brother. She asked him if he could talk to him. He allowed her and her brother to talk and the latter pleaded to her
for help and cried. Fortea told her not to talk in their dialect and took the phone. Fortea then told her to see him at SM
North Edsa Car Park on January 30, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Fortea did not come. At about 9:00 p.m., she proceeded to
Station 2 and met Fortea. He asked her about the money but she told him she cannot afford it. Her brother was then
detained when she failed to give in to the said demand.13

The RTC, in its decision dated January 29, 2007, found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of
shabu, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. It also ordered the appellant to pay a
₱500,000.00 fine.

Shirley’s testimony was summarized by the RTC as follows:

x x x On February 1, 2004, she was at home when her brother was brought to Precinct 2, Baler[,] Quezon City. On
January 29, 2004, at about 11:00 p.m., she received a text message from Allan Fortea, a policeman, telling her to call
a certain number if she loves her brother. The next day, at about 8:00 a.m., she called Fortea at the number he gave
her. He told her that his brother at Station 2 Baler Quezon City and asked her to produce ₱200,000.00 as ransom for
her brother. She asked him if he could talk to him. He allowed her and her brother to talk and the latter pleaded to her
for help and cried. Fortea told her not to talk in their dialect and took the phone. Fortea then told her to see him at SM
North Edsa Car Park on January 30, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Fortea did not come. At about 9:00 p.m., she proceeded to
Station 2 and met Fortea. He asked her about the money but she told him she cannot afford it. Her brother was then
detained when she failed to give in to the said demand.13

The RTC, in its decision dated January 29, 2007, found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of
shabu, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. It also ordered the appellant to pay a
₱500,000.00 fine.

ruling: sc resolve to ACQUIT the appellant for the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely
show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant;
otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for drug pushing under RA No. 9165 fails.17

a. The ‘Marking’ Requirement vis-à-vis the Chain of Custody Rule

Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 (which implements R.A. No. 9165) 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 the receipt in the
forensic laboratory, to safekeeping and the presentation in court for identification and eventual destruction.

The Court explained the importance of establishing the chain of custody over the seized drug in the recent case of
People of the Philippines v. Joselito Beran y Zapanta @ "Jose,"18 as follows:

The purpose of the requirement of proof of the chain of custody is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized drug are preserved, as thus dispel unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence. To be
admissible, the prosecution must establish by records or testimony the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit, from
the time it came into the possession of the police officers, until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its
composition, and all the way to the time it was offered in evidence.

Thus, crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after
they are seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of
his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, this Court has
consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs casts reasonable doubt on the
authenticity of the corpus delicti.

Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be
immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking
of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from
the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus
preventing switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.19

The records in the present case do not show that the police marked the seized plastic sachet immediately upon
confiscation, or at the police station. Nowhere in the court testimony of PO2 Centeno, or in the stipulated testimonies
of PO3 Chantengco and PO1 Fortea, did they indicate that the seized item had ever been marked. Notably, the
members of the buy-bust team did not also mention that they marked the seized plastic sachet in their Joint Affidavit
of Arrest.

How the apprehending team could have omitted such a basic and vital procedure in the initial handling of the seized
drugs truly baffles and alarms us. We point out that succeeding handlers of the specimen would use the markings as
reference. If at the first or the earliest reasonably available opportunity, the apprehending team did not mark the
seized items, then there was nothing to identify it later on as it passed from hand to hand. Due to the procedural
lapse in the first link of the chain of custody, serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of the seized shabu that
the prosecution introduced into evidence.

We are not unaware that the seized plastic sachet already bore the markings "BC 02-01-04"
when it was examined by Forensic Chemist Jabonillo. In the absence, however, of specifics on
how, when and where this marking was done and who witnessed the marking procedure, we
cannot accept this marking as compliance with the required chain of custody requirement. There
was also no stipulation between the parties regarding the circumstances surrounding this
marking. We note in this regard that it is not enough that the seized drug be marked; the
marking must likewise be made in the presence of the apprehended violator. As earlier stated,
the police did not at any time ever hint that they marked the seized drug.

In Lito Lopez v. People of the Philippines 20 we acquitted the accused for failure of the police to mark the seized drugs.
The Court had a similar ruling in People of the Philippines v. Merlita Palomares y Costuna; 21 the Court acquitted the
accused for the prosecution’s failure to clearly establish the identity of the person who marked the seized drugs; the
place where marking was made; and whether the marking had been made in the accused’s presence. These recent
cases show that the Court will not hesitate to free an accused if irregularities attended the first stage of the chain of
custody over the seized drugs.

People vs. Abetong

accused-appellant Marlon Abetong' s appeal from the June 28, 2013 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01357 affirming his conviction beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

prosecution witness Police Officer 3 Wilfredo Perez (PO3 Perez) of the Police Station 1, Bacolod City Police
Office, testified that, in the morning of August 22, 2003, their office received information that a certain alias
"Cano," later identified as accused-appellant, was selling drugs in his house at Purok Sigay, Barangay 2,
Bacolod City. Police Senior Inspector Jonathan Lorilla (Inspector Lorilla) then called for a briefing for the
conduct of a buy-bust operation against "Cano" and designated PO3 Perez as the poseur-buyer. In
preparation for the operation, PO3 Perez initialled two (2) PhP 50 bills bearing Serial Nos. CN467805 and
BZ323461, which were going to be used as marked money. After recording the details of the preparation in
the police blotter, PO3 Perez and the informant proceeded to the address while Inspector Lorilla and some of
his personnel tailed in a car.

Upon arrival at the target area, PO3 Perez and the asset knocked on the door and were greeted by accused-
appellant, who asked the purpose of the visit. PO3 Perez answered that he wanted to buy PhP 100 worth of
shabu. The two were ushered in by accused-appellant and once inside, PO3 Perez saw three persons sitting
around a table, passing to one another a tooter and allegedly engaged in a pot session. The three were
identified as Ricky Bayotas, Reynaldo Relos and Archie Berturan. PO3 Perez then drew two PhP 50 bills
marked "WCP" and handed them over to accused-appellant who in turn gave him a plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substance from his right pocket.

After receiving the plastic sachet, PO3 Perez introduced himself as a police officer and signalled his back-up
to effect the arrest of the four individuals. The suspects attempted to flee but their plans were foiled by the
timely arrival of the other policemen. They were then brought to the police station where their arrest and the
list of the items confiscated from them were entered in the police blotter. From their arrest until the items
seized were transmitted to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, the pieces of evidence
were allegedly under PO3 Perez’s custody. In his testimony, PO3 Perez stated that he kept the items inside
the evidence locker in the Drug Enforcement Unit Office, to which only Inspector Lorilla has a key.

On August 25, 2013, PO3 Perez brought the sachet containing crystalline substance and the tooter to the
PNP Crime Laboratory for testing. The items were received by Inspector Augustina Ompoy (Inspector
Ompoy), the Forensic Chemical Officer of the Regional PNP Crime Laboratory 6, Camp Delgado, Iloilo City,
who then performed the necessary examinations on the items recovered.

Inspector Ompoy testified for the prosecution on the receipt in the PNP Crime Laboratory of the letter-
request for laboratory examination of the specimens. According to her, she conducted quantitative and
qualitative tests and found that the white crystalline substance in the plastic sachet tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.04 gram while the tooter tested negative for
any prohibited drug.

Accused-appellant, for his part, raised that he was illegally arrested, a defense corroborated by Crispin
Mejorada, Jr., a friend and neighbor of the former. As succinctly put by the trial court: 3

Testifying in his defense, accused Marlon Abetong declared being at home in Purok Sigay, Brgy. 2, Bacolod
City at 11:50 AM of August 22, 2003, sweeping the floor, alone. Suddenly, a male person entered the open
door and held him by his pants. When Marlon asked what his fault was, the man answered to just go with
him. The person was in civvies, fair skinned and tall; he did not introduce himself. Marlon was handcuffed
while they were at the foot-walk heading to 26th Aguinaldo Street, and searched, but nothing was recovered
from him except his money – ₱9.00.

Accused was made to board a vehicle at Aguinaldo; three handcuffed persons were inside. All four were
brought to BAC-Up 2 and placed in a cell. Abetong was not informed of the cause of his arrest; no drugs
were presented to him. He knew of the charge – Violation of Section 5, R.A. 9165 – only during arraignment in
:cour

ISSUE: WON prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to afford the court a reliable assurance that the evidence
presented is one and the same as those confiscated from accused-appellant.

RULING: Sec. 21 of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in part, requires:

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

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative
examination.

The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the drug evidence

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. And the risk of tampering, loss or
mistake with respect to an exhibit of this nature 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. As a reasonable measure, in authenticating narcotic specimens, 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. 7

The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence,
in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it
was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would
then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and
no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of it. 8

In the case at bar, the failure of Inspector Lorilla to testify is fatal to the prosecution’s case. To recall, only
PO3 Perez and Inspector Ompoy testified against accused-appellant. During his testimony, PO3 Perez
admitted that he put the confiscated item in the evidence locker on August 22, 2003 for safekeeping and
subsequently brought them to Inspector Ompoy at the crime laboratory on August 25, 2003. 9 During this
three-day interval, the items were allegedly kept inside the evidence locker to which only Inspector Lorilla
has the key.

It is evident from this sequence of events that during the interim, Inspector Lorilla constructively acquired
custody over the seized items. As the lone key holder and consequentially a link in the chain, Inspector
Lorilla’s testimony became indispensable in proving the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. Only he could have testified that from August 22 to 25, 2003 no one else obtained the key from him for
purposes of removing the items from their receptacle. Only he could have enlightened the courts on what
safety mechanisms have been installed in order to preserve the integrity of the evidence acquired while
inside the locker. Absent his testimony, therefore, it cannot be plausibly claimed that the chain of custody
has sufficiently been established.

PEOPLE VS GAMATA

This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated May 11, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04839
which affirmed the Decision2 dated September 15, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 64
in Criminal Case Nos. 06-1344 to 1345 finding Nenita Gamata y Valdez (accused-appellant) guilty in Criminal Case
No. 06-1344 for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of P500,000.00.

an information was received by Senior Inspector Joefel Felongco Siason (S/Insp. Siason) of the Station Anti-Illegal
Drugs Special Operations Task Force (SAIDSOTF), Makati City, from a confidential asset of the MADAC that
rampant illegal drug peddling in Laperal Compound, Barangay Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City was being carried out by
the accused-appellant, Jun Gamata (Jun), Toto Madera and Totoy Pajayjay. Apparently, their names are also
included in the watch list of the MADAC.

Forthwith, a team composed of SAIDSOTF police officers and MADAC operatives was formed to conduct a buy-bust
operation against the said subjects. During the briefing, PO2 Aseboque was designated as the poseur-buyer while
the rest of the team members were assigned to be his back-up. The operation was coordinated with the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) under Pre-Coordination Sheet Control Number MMRO-072506-0212 duly
acknowledged to have been received by PO1 Nemencio V. Domingo of the PDEA. 5 One piece of a P500.00 bill was
also marked for use in the operation.6

At around 4:30 p.m., the team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to the subject area. The team
members positioned themselves in spots where they can monitor the possible transaction. Meanwhile, PO2
Aseboque and the informant walked towards Laperal Compound and thereupon noticed a woman clad in white t-shirt
and maong pants. The informant identified her to PO2 Aseboque as the accused-appellant.

The two of them then approached the accused-appellant whom PO2 Aseboque queried as to the whereabouts of
Jun. In response, the accused-appellant said that Jun was not around and that “kami nandito lang, bakit kukuha ba
kayo?” PO2 Aseboque comprehended her response as the street language used in the dealing of dangerous drugs
and that she actually meant that she was selling shabu if they wanted to buy one. PO2 Aseboque repeated his query
to which the accused-appellant replied, “Wag niyo ng hintayin si Jun, ako meron.” PO2 Aseboque took her response
as a confirmation that she was indeed selling shabu. He then asked her if she had P500.00 worth of shabu. The
accused-appellant took out one plastic sachet from her right pocket and handed it over to PO2 Aseboque who in turn
examined its contents and thereafter handed the buy-bust money to the accused-appellant. As she was placing the
money inside her pocket, PO2 Aseboque made the pre-arranged signal to his buy-bust team mates by lighting a
cigarette.

Upon seeing MADAC operative Pulido rushing towards the scene, PO2 Aseboque held the accused-appellant and
introduced himself as a police officer. He directed her to empty the contents of her pockets but she refused. This
prompted PO2 Aseboque to order Pulido to dig into the accused-appellant’s pockets. Pulido complied and discovered
three more pieces of transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected as shabu along with
the buy-bust money and P120.00 of the accused-appellant’s personal money.

The accused-appellant was then informed of her constitutional rights while the sachet she sold to PO2 Aseboque was
immediately marked by the latter with his initials “REA” while those recovered by Pulido were marked with “REA-1”,
“REA-2”, and “REA-3”. At the crime scene, PO2 Aseboque also prepared an Acknowledgment Receipt 7 which he and
the arresting team signed.

The accused-appellant and the seized evidence were subsequently brought to the Makati SAIDSOTF office where
they were turned over to PO2 Rafael Castillo (PO2 Castillo) for investigation, interrogation and proper disposition. At
the same office, PO2 Aseboque executed an Affidavit of Arrest8 and a Supplemental Affidavit.

Along with a Request for Laboratory Examination9 prepared by S/Insp. Siason, Pulido brought the seized specimens
to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The same were received by a certain Relos, officer of the day, in the presence of
Crime Laboratory Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Bonifacio.

P/Insp. Bonifacio conducted the necessary tests on the subject specimens and the results thereof yielded positive
results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Thereafter, she tagged each item with tape markings and
reduced her findings in Physical Science Report Number D-506-06S. 10 She then turned over the specimens to the
evidence custodian from whom she later on retrieved them upon the instructions of the prosecutor after the filing of
criminal informations against the accused-appellant.11

The defense refuted all of the above occurrences and claimed, through the testimony of the accused-appellant, that
at around 3:00 p.m. of July 25, 2006, she had just finished taking a bath when she heard someone banging the door
of her house in Laperal Compound. When she opened the door, five armed men in civilian clothing greeted her and
asked for Jun, her brother-in-law. When she answered them that she did not know Jun’s whereabouts, they began
searching her house. Since Jun actually resides at about five houses away from hers, the armed men were unable to
locate him at the accused-appellant’s house. They then handcuffed the accused-appellant and loaded her in a van
where she saw her neighbor, Alaw, and a certain Jonalyn Silvano. The three of them were brought to the SAIDSOTF
office where the accused-appellant was shown items that will be used as evidence against heR

On appeal, the accused-appellant argued for her acquittal on the ground that the identity of the drugs seized from her
was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution failed to supply all the links in the chain of their
custody. She further pointed out the inconsistent testimonial and documentary evidence on the markings placed on
the seized items. The accused-appellant also questioned the failure of the police officers to comply with the
procedure laid down in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 particularly, the preparation of the inventory and taking
of photographs of the seized items.15
held: As correctly ruled by the courts a quo, the presence of both requisites was clearly established by the testimony of the poseur-buyer himself, PO2 Aseboque, who positively testified that the illegal

sale took place when he gave the P500.00 marked money to the accused-appellant in exchange for the shabu

when the chain of custody of the corpus delicti or the illegal drug itself was shown to be unbroken,25 as in this case. Testimonial and documentary evidence show that the poseur-buyer, PO2 Aseboque,

marked the seized illegal drug at the crime scene with his initials “REA”. At the same place, he also prepared an Acknowledgment Receipt of the items seized from the accused-appellant whose refusal to

sign was duly noted in the same document.26 The seized item was then immediately turned over by PO2 Aseboque to SAIDSOTF investigating officer PO2 Castillo.27 On the same day, PO2 Castillo

brought the seized illegal drug, together with the Request for Laboratory Examination,28 to the PNP Crime Laboratory where it was received by a certain Relos in the presence of Forensic Chemist,

P/Insp. Bonifacio.29 In her Physical Science Report No. D-506-06S,30 the contents of the seized item marked REA weighed 0.03 gram tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

After her examination, P/Insp. Bonifacio turned over the seized item to the evidence custodian from whom she later retrieved them upon the instructions of and for submission to the prosecutor. On the

witness stand, P/Insp. Bonifacio categorically identified the specimen presented as evidence as the very same specimen which she tested based on the marking she placed thereon: “D-506-06S”.31

Indeed, the following links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug were duly accounted for, to wit: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending

officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory

examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.32

The alleged discrepancy between the testimony of PO2 Aseboque that he placed the marking REA on the seized item, the forensic chemist’s report stating that the specimen was marked “R.E.A.” and the

absence of any such description in the Spot Report33 of PO2 Castillo did not cause a gap in the chain of custody. As exhaustively discussed by the CA, the identity and integrity of the seized item was

preserved because, despite lack of accurate description in the Spot Report, P/Insp. Bonifacio testified that the item she received for laboratory examination bore the markings “REA” placed by PO2

Aseboque at the crime scene. It is for this same reason that the punctuation marks after the letters R, E and A in her Physical Science Report No. D-506-06S did not alter the identity and integrity of the

actual specimen marked as “REA.” The specimen marked at the crime scene, turned over to PO2 Castillo and then received by P/Insp. Bonifacio were one and the same.

Further, the failure of the evidence custodian to take the witness stand did not weaken the case for the prosecution because P/Insp. Bonifacio was able to positively identify that the evidence submitted in

court was the very same specimen which she subjected to laboratory examination and its contents tested positive for shabu.34

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VIVIAN BULOTANO y AMANTE,

Acting as poseur-buyers, PO1 Dizon Dagaraga (PO1 Dagaraga), together with an informant, approached Bulotano, who was playing a card game with two (2) other persons inside a billiard
hall. When Bulotano noticed the two, she approached them and asked what they were looking for. PO1 Dagaraga replied that he wants to buy ₱200.00 worth of shabu. After Bulotano handed
PO1 Dagaraga a transparent plastic sachet containing crystals, PO1 Dagaraga handed Bulotano marked money in the amount of ₱200.00.

Immediately, PO1 Dagaraga went out of the billiard hall to call the back-up officers to arrest Bulotano.

During her arrest, PO1 Cotta Tanggote informed Bulotano of the reason for her arrest and of her constitutional rights. Bulotano was brought to the PDEA- Region 10 Office at Cagayan De
Oro City for her inquest for violation of Republic Act No. 9165.

Bulotano was then brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory where she was asked for her urine sample. When tested, the result came positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. 4
The laboratory examination by the PNP Crime Laboratory of the transparent plastic sachet containing crystalline substance also tested positive for 0.10 gram of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride or shabu.5

As her defense, Bulotano claims that during her arrest, she was merely playing a card game when three (3) armed men suddenly barged into the billiard hall and approached her. According
to Bulotano, one of the three (3) armed men introduced himself as a policeman, after which, she was brought outside and made to board a police vehicle. Bulotano further claims that during
the entire incident, she was in a state of shock and was never informed of the reason for her arrest, as well as of her constitutional rights. Contrary to the prosecution’s allegation of facts,
Bulotano claims that she found out the reason for her arrest only upon arrival at the PDEA-Region 10 Office, where PO1 Dagaraga made her sign an inventory receipt of the illegal drugs

allegedly seized from her.

One Joel Flores was presented in support of the defense. Essentially, he testified that there was no buy-bust operation which took place and that the PDEA agents just suddenly barged into
the billiard hall and poked a gun at Bulotano’s forehead.6

Bulotano entered a plea of not guilty on the Information

Bulotano insists that her conviction is without basis. She anchors her arguments on the following allegations:

(1) There were no photographs of the alleged seized illegal drugs taken;

(2) The inventory of the alleged seized illegal drugs was not immediately done after her arrest. The inventory was conducted only after she underwent inquest proceedings at the City
Prosecutor’s Office, following which the inventory was shown to her and she was forced to sign the same. There were no witnesses in the conduct of the inventory and that the inventory
report was solely signed by PO1 Dagaraga;

(3) The Chemistry Report, prepared by P/S Insp. April Madroño

(Forensic Chemical Officer), dated 7 September 2004, was not duly notarized; and

(4) The trial court failed to appreciate the testimony of Joel Flores.

held: the procedural requirements of Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 were not followed. First,no photograph of the seized shabu was taken. Second, the arresting officers did not

immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime. Third, although there was testimony about the marking of the seized items at the police station, the records do not show that

the marking was done in the presence of Bulotano. Fourth, no representative of the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected official attended the conduct of the physical

inventory and signed the inventory. And finally, the Chemistry Report was not duly notarized.

The "chain of custody" rule.

Without doubt, the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements provided in Section 21.However, noncompliance with the regulations is not necessarily fatal as to render
an accused’s arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible as evidence of his guilt, for what is of the utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the confiscated items that will be utilized in the determination of his guilt or innocence.20 Such that, when there is a failure to follow strictly the said procedure, the crime can still be
proven, i.e., that the noncompliance was under justifiable grounds or that the shabu taken is the same one presented in court by proof of "chain of custody".

We refer to the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of the IRR, which provides a saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of noncompliance irreversibly prejudices the State’s evidence,
to wit:

(a) The apprehending office/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; (Emphasis and Underscoring supplied)

As thus provided, noncompliance with the enumerated requirements in Section 21 of the law, does not automatically exonerate the accused. Upon proof that noncompliance was due to
justifiable grounds, and that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, the seizure and custody over said items are

not, by the noncompliance, rendered void.

people vs salvidar

Facts: "That on or about the 12th day of November 2007 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of

law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO3 RAMON GALVEZ, who posed, as buyer, ten (10) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing

dried MARIJUANA fruiting tops weighing 0.37 gram, 0.35 gram, 0.40 gram, 0.28 gram, 0.35 gram, 0.36 gram, 0.32 gram, 0.36 gram, 0.67 gram & 0.57 gram, a dangerous drug, without the

corresponding license or prescription therefore, knowing the same to be such.

During arraignment, the accused-appellant entered a "not guilty" plea. Pre-trial then ensued. Since the two cases were filed against the same accused and revolve around the same facts and

evidence, they were consolidated and tried jointly.

The prosecution offered the following as witnesses: (a) Police Officer 3 Ramon Galvez (PO3 Galvez), the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation conducted against the accused-appellant;

(b) PO2 Randulfo Hipolito (PO2 Hipolito), likewise a member of the buy-bust operation; (c) Senior Police Officer 1 Fernando Moran (SPO1 Moran), then the investigator-on-duty to whom the

accused-appellant and the seized evidence were turned over at the police station; and (d) Police Chief Inspector Albert S. Arturo (PCI Arturo), Forensic Chemical Officer of the Northern

Police District Crime Laboratory Office, Caloocan City, who conducted the examination on the evidence seized from the accused-appellant.

The accused-appellant also alleged that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the evidence. There was no explicit testimony that the specimens were marked
in the presence of the accused-appellant. There was likewise no proof that the items were photographed and inventoried in the presence of a member of the media, a Department of Justice
(DOJ) representative, and an elective government official.

Further, not all who had custody of the specimens testified on the condition of the same upon receipt and the precautions they took to preserve their integrity. It is perplexing as well why
SPO1 Moran delivered the seized items twice to the crime laboratory – at first to a certain PO1 Bolora at 9:40 p.m. of November 12, 2007, and subsequently to PCI Arturo at 9:45 p.m. of the
same date. While PO1 Bolora’s custody over the seized items merely lasted for a few minutes, still, he should have testified because that short span of time was more than sufficient to
destroy the integrity of the evidence.

issue: won the prosecution had complied with the procedural requirements mandated by Section 2132 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 as regards the chain

of custody over the evidence seized from the accused-appellant.

he Court finds the chain of custody over the evidence seized from the accused-appellant as unbroken and that there was sufficient compliance with Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165.

PO3 Galvez positively testified that he marked the ten (10) plastic sachets containing marijuana and the pieces of white paper while still in the place where the accused-appellant was

arrested, and in the presence of the latter.36 PO2 Hipolito did the same relative to the plastic container with marijuana likewise found in the accused-appellant’s possession. 37 When the
members of the buy-bust team arrived in the police station, they turned-over the person of the accused-appellant and the items seized from him to SPO1 Moran, who in turn, prepared the
Evidence Acknowledgment Receipt and letter request for laboratory examination. 38 Thereafter, PCI Arturo conducted the laboratory examinations and found the specimens to be
marijuana.39 These were the same items identified by the prosecution witnesses and presented to the trial court as evidence.

The accused-appellant lamented that the evidence seized were not photographed and inventoried in the presence of a member of the media, a representative from the DOJ, and an elective
government official. While this factual allegation is admitted, the Court stresses that what Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 requires is "substantial" and not necessarily "perfect
adherence,"40 as long as it can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.41

The accused-appellant attempted to establish that there was a breach in the chain of custody over the evidence seized from him by pointing out that SPO1 Moran twice delivered the items to
the crime laboratory – at first to a certain PO1 Bolora and later, to PCI Arturo. 42 The Court notes that despite the foregoing allegation, the defense agreed with the prosecution to dispense
with the testimonies of SPO1 Moran and PCI Arturo. The parties entered into stipulations and admissions of facts as regards the participation of the aforementioned two. This is no less than
an admission on the part of the defense that there was nothing irregular in SPO1 Moran and PCI Arturo’s performance of their duties relative to preserving the integrity of the evidence which
fell in their custody. Had the accused-appellant sincerely believed that there was indeed a breach in the chain of custody over the seized items, he would have insisted on putting SPO1
Moran and PCI Arturo on the witness stand for cross-examination.1âwphi1

In sum, the Court finds the herein assailed decision affirming the RTC’s conviction of the accused-appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 as amply supported
by both evidence and jurisprudence.

people vs edano

facts:he prosecution charged the appellant and Godofredo Siochi with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 under two separate Informations, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-
02-111200 and Q-02-112104.

The appellant and Siochi pleaded not guilty to the charge on arraignment. Joint trial on the merits followed.

The prosecution presented, as itswitnesses, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Aylin Casignia and Police Officer (PO) 3 Elmer Corbe. The appellant, Siochi and Ruben Forteza took the witness stand
for the defense.

The evidence for the prosecution established that on the evening of August 6, 2002, members of the Metro Manila Drugs Enforcement Group, composed of PO3 Corbe, PO3 Nelson Javier,
PO3 Dennis Padpad, PO3 Marcelo Alcancia, Jr., together with a female informant, went to the parking area of McDonalds, West Avenue to conduct an entrapment operation against a certain
alias "Nato."4

At around 7:00 p.m., the appellant arrived on board a space wagon driven by Siochi. 5 The informant approached the appellant and talked to him inside the vehicle. Afterwards, the informant
waved at PO3 Corbe.6 When PO3 Corbe was approaching the appellant, the latter went out of the vehicle and ran away. PO3 Corbe, PO3 Padpad and PO3 Alcancia chased the appellant; PO3
Corbe was able to grab the appellant, causing the latter to fall on the ground. PO3 Corbe recovered a "knot-tied" transparent plastic bag from the appellant’s right hand, while PO3 Alcancia
seized a gun tucked in the appellant’s waist. The other members of the police arrested Siochi. Thereafter, the police brought the appellant, Siochi and the seized items to the police station
for investigation.7

P/Insp. Casignia, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the Western Police District Crime Laboratory, examinedthe seized items and found them positive for the presence of shabu. 8

The appellant, for his part, testified that at around 4:00 p.m. on August 6, 2002, he called Siochi on the phone, and informed him that the motorbike starter the latter needed was already
available.9 On the same day, Vanessa Paduada called the appellant, and asked for the directions to McDonalds, West Avenue. 10 At around 6:00 p.m., Siochi and Ruben arrived at the gate of
Philam Homes on board a space wagon. The appellant met them at the subdivision gate, and showed the starter to Siochi. Thereafter, Vanessa called on the appellant’s cellular phone. The
appellant then boarded the vehicle, and told Siochi that he would just talk to a person at McDonalds. 11 When the space wagon arrived at McDonalds, the appellant alighted from the vehicle
and proceeded towards the restaurant’s entrance. Afterwards, Vanessa called him from inside a parked car. The appellant approached Vanessa who, for her part, alighted from the car.
Vanessa told the appellant to get inside the car’s rear. The appellant did as instructed; Vanessa went to the front passenger seat, beside a male driver. 12 Immediately after, the male driver
alighted from the vehicle and entered the car’s rear. The appellant went out of the car, but the male driver followed him and grabbed his hand. The appellant resisted, and wrestled with the
driver along West Avenue. During this commotion, the appellant heard a gunfire; four (4) persons approached him, and then tied his hands with a masking tape. 13 The police placed him on
board a pick-up truck, and then brought him to Bicutan. In Bicutan, the police brought him to the interrogation room, where they punched him and placed a plastic on his head. 14
In its joint decision dated April 22, 2004, the RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of shabu under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. It also ordered him to pay a ₱500,000.00 fine.

appellant essentially alleged that PO3 Corbe’s testimony was "vague and equivocal;" 18 it lacked details on how the appellant was lured to sell shabu to the informant, and how the
entrapment operation had been planned. The appellant also argued that his warrantless arrest was illegal since he was not committing any crime when the police arrested him. He
alsoclaimed that the police did not mark and photograph the seized items, and that there was a broken chain of custody over the confiscated drugs.

held: Marking, as used in drug cases, means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyerof his/her initials and signature on the item/s seized. "Consistency with the "chain
of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items - to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence - should be
done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation." 27 The Court clarified in People v. Resurreccion28 that marking upon immediate confiscation
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. Thus, while marking of the seized drugs at the police station is permitted, the marking should be
done by the police, and not by the accused. The appellant’s participation inthe marking procedure should only be as a witness. Why the police failed to do a basic police procedure truly
baffles us.

We also point out that per the testimony of P/Insp. Casignia, the Forensic Chemical Officer, the police forwarded two (2) plastic bags containing white crystalline substances to the crime
laboratory for examination – one marked with the initials "OR" and the other marked with "GS." Both plastic bags were used asevidence against the appellant. The records, however, did not
indicate who marked the plastic bag with "GS," who witnessed this marking, and whenthis marking had been made. As with the bag that had been marked "OR," we express doubts on
whether the plastic bag containing white crystalline substances marked as "GS" was the same plastic bag taken from the appellant’s co-accused, Siochi.

Second, the police did not inventory or photographthe seized drugs, whether at the place of confiscation or at the police station. 1avvphi1 These omissions were admitted by the prosecution
during pre-trial.29

The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1,Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which states:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventoryand 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[.] [emphases ours]

This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of theImplementing Rules and Regulations(IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, which reads:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventoryand 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 berequired 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[.] [emphasis ours]

To be sure, Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR offers some flexibility in complying with the express requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, i.e.,"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[.]"This saving clause, however, applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses and

thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. 30

These conditions were not met in the present case, as the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any justification for its failure to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling and
safekeeping of the seized items. "We stress that it is the prosecution who has the positive duty to establish that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated
under Section 21[a] of R.A. No. 9165, or that there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so."31 The Court cannot simply presume what these justifications are.

people vs villarta

facts: Appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, for selling and for possessing, re

PO2 Bugtai narrated that they coordinated first with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) as evidenced by a Coordination Form and a Pre-Operation Report; that he was
designated as poseur-buyer; that the confidential agent had already made a pre-arranged deal with Jake; that the buy-bust money consisting of two pieces of P100.00 carried SPO1
Petallar's initials and had been photographed; that he and the confidential agent arrived at Sanciangko Street riding in a motorcycle, while the rest of the buy-bust team followed on board an
unmarked service vehicle; that when they reached Sanciangko Street at around 12:30 a.m. of April 3, 2010, Jake approached them and asked the confidential agent if he (PO2 Bugtai) was the
buyer to which the confidential agent answered in the affirmative; that Jake said that the "item" was worth P200.00; that upon his request, Jake showed the same to him; that he said, "Okay,
we're good," which meant that he was willing to buy the item; that Jake delivered the item to him and he gave Jake the buy-bust money; that after the exchange and as agreed upon during
the buy-bust team's briefing, he flashed the pre-arranged signal by touching his hair with his left hand; that his companions then rushed towards them; that he held Jake and tried to recover
the buy-bust money from him; that a scuffle ensued but he eventually recovered the buy-bust money with the help of his companions: that at that point, he arrested Jake and informed the

latter of the offense he had committed and the rights of an accused; that as a matter of procedure, he conducted a body search upon Jake for any deadly weapon; and that as a result of said
search, he recovered two packs of shabu from the right pocket of Jake's short pants.spectively, methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as shabu.
PO2 Bugtai further recounted that he was in custody of the subject dangerous drugs from the place of the incident and back to the IDMB office; that the buy-bust team failed to bring a
container to seal the seized dangerous drugs; that as the buy-bust team had no marking paraphernalia at the time, he marked at the police station the dangerous drugs subject of the sale as
CAV-BB, while the two items recovered during the body search were marked as CAV and CAV-1; that after the marking, they made a request for laboratory examination of the subject seized
dangerous drugs; that he also delivered the subject seized dangerous drugs to the crime laboratory; that he came to know the true name of Jake, the appellant herein; that PO3 Dela Victoria
took pictures of the subject seized dangerous drugs; that it was SPO1 Petallar who signed the inventory that he (PO2 Bugtai) prepared, with a notation stating that "no barangay official

available to sign the inventory receipt"; and that no representative from the media and from the Department of Justice (DOJ) signed the inventory because of difficulty in getting their
presence early in the morning.

RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The CA held that the prosecution had successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of shabu as well as
all the elements of illegal possession of shabu.

held: In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost

importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. 'The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary

doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.'44 (Emphasis supplied.)

The term chain of custody pertains to 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."45 "In prosecuting both illegal
sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if doubt persists on the identity of said drugs."46 In this connection, it is settled that:

xxx The identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact
that the dangerous drug illegally possessed and sold is the same drug offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as
that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.

Because it is indispensable that the substance confiscated from the accused be the very same substance offered in. court, the Court has adopted the chain of
custody rule, a method of authenticating evidence which 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 chain of custody is established by testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such

a way that every person who touched the exhibit would be able to 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.

As a general rule, the prosecution must endeavour to establish four links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover
and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.47 (Emphasis supplied.)

In the case under review, this Court finds that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's finding that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Indeed, this Court finds that
the prosecution miserably failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated items.

To start with, in regard to the first link in the chain of custody in the instant case, PO2 Bugtai testified that he seized the illegal drugs from appellant at the locus criminis, and did not mark
them immediately, but marked the same only after he got to the police station. In fact, he suggested that the reason for the non-marking of the prohibited drugs at the crime scene was
because he failed to bring a marking pen at the place of arrest and seizure, Given the foregoing admission by the only witness to testify for the prosecution, "[i]t is evident that there was a
break [a gap, or an interval] in the very first link of the chain when [this police officer] failed to mark the sachets of shabu immediately upon seizing them from the appellant."49 Quite clearly,

this does not accord with the mandatory requirement of the law.

in the case of People v. Ismael,51 thus – "there was already a significant break such that there can be no assurance against switching, planting, or contamination. The Court has previously

held that, 'failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt."52

people v. Miranda, Jr.,61 the Court ruled that the inexcusable failure to observe the requirements regarding the physical inventory and photographs justified the acquittal of the appellant

based on reasonable doubt

In brief, this Court is constrained to acquit appellant based on reasonable doubt in view of the prosecution's failure to "(1) overcome the presumption of innocence x x x; (2) prove the

corpus delicti of the crime: (3) establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs; and [(4)] offer any explanation why the provisions of Section 21, RA 9165 were not complied

with".73 As such, all other issues need not be resolved as the result will not be altered.

people vs cedron gr 201111

On appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 10 November 2011, affirming the conviction by the Regional Trial Court 2 (RTC) of Angeles City, Pampanga, Branch 57, of

appellant Alfredo Cerdon y Sanchez for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and the corresponding penalty of life imprisonment and fine of ₱500,000.00. Appellant was

charged with the violation following a "buy-bust" operation.

Acting on a tip from an asset that a certain "Fred" was selling shabu in his residence at Roxas Street, Mabalacat, Pampanga, the Chief of Police of Mabalacat Police Station formeda buy-bust team on 12
July 2003 composed of PO1 Yusi as poseur-buyer, SPO4 Israel Gutierrez as team leader, PO3 Rodolfo Agustin, Jr. (PO3 Agustin), PO3 Laxamana, and a certain PO1 Basangan. PO1 Yusi was then
given two (2) One Hundred Peso bills to be used as buy-bust money. He marked his initials "MVY" on the bills. 5 A pre-operational coordination sheetwas prepared. At about 5:00 p.m. of the same day, the
team proceededto the target place. PO1 Yusi was introduced by the asset to a certainFred, who later was identified as appellant. Appellant asked from PO1 Yusi how much shabuthe latter would buy.
Appellant then went inside the house and came out a few minutes later handing one plastic sachet of shabuto PO1 Yusi in exchange for ₱200.00. After the exchange, PO1 Yusi made the pre-arranged

signal of scratching his head. PO3 Laxamana and PO3 Agustin rushed to the scene while PO1 Yusi introduced himself as a police officer. PO3 Laxamana confiscated the marked money from appellant.
He also noticed that appellant had a Caliber 22 magnum with eight rounds of ammunition tucked on his waist. PO3 Laxamana confiscated the same. Appellant was then brought to the barangayhall where
the confiscation receipt was prepared. PO1 Yusi likewise placed his markings on the confiscated shabu. Thereafter, appellant was brought to the police station. At 10:00 p.m. on the same day, PO1 Yusi
and PO3 Laxamana brought the confiscated evidence to the crime laboratory.6

In his defense, appellant denied the charge against him. He narrated that at around 4:00 p.m. on 12 July 2003, he was having snack with his livein partner Yvette Jose when three male persons entered
his house. He recognized them as PO1 Yusi, PO3 Laxamana and PO3 Agustin. These three police officers poked their guns onappellant while PO1 Yusi searched his room. While he was held at the
kitchen, appellant heard PO1 Yusi utter the word "bingo." PO1 Yusi emerged carrying a gun allegedly confiscated from appellant. Appellant was immediately arrested but he resisted. A commotion ensued
before the barangaychairman arrived. The barangay chairman asked appellant to go with the police officers to the barangayhall. Afterwards, appellant was brought to the police station.

The result of the laboratory examination confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochlorideon the white crystalline substance inside the plastic sachet confiscated from appellant. 14 The delivery
of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction. This was further corroborated by the presentation ofthe marked

money in evidence.15

Appellant avers that there was no testimony which proves that the police officers complied with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 in effecting his arrest and in the subsequent disposition of the
prohibited drug involved. Appellant asserts that there was no evidence presented to show that the police officers conducted an inventory, and took photographs, of the confiscated items in his presence, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Appellant points out that the confiscation receipt was neither prepared by the police officers in the presence of the media

representative and the DOJ, nor was it signed by the latter. Furthermore, appellant claims that the police officers presented no valid justification as to their non-compliance with the procedural mandates of
the law.

Appellant then contends that the prosecution failed to prove the crucial links in the chain of custody of shabu, such as: 1) immediate marking of the seized shabu; 2) to whom PO3 Laxamana turned over

the sachet at the crime laboratory; 3) the presentation ofthe chemist on the witness stand; and 4) the identity of the person who had custody over the subject drug pending its presentation in court.

PO1 Yusi was able to put the necessary markings on the plastic sachet of shabuseized from appellant at the police station. The general rule is that "marking" of the seized items – to truly ensure that they
are the same items that enter the chain and are eventuallythe ones offered in evidence – should be done, (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation. To be

able to create a first link in the chain of custody, then, what is required is that the marking should be made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate confiscation. In People v. Gum-Oyen, 16 a
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 ofcustody. Marking upon
immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.17

The non-presentation of the forensic chemist is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. In People v. Quebral, 18 this Court explained that "the corpus delictiin dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous
drug itself. x x x [I]t has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory analyst. In fact, this Court has ruled that the report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the
presumption of regularity in its preparation. Corollarily, under Section 44, Rule 130, of the Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facieevidence
of the facts they state."19

The prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drug. The concurrence of all the elements of the illegal sale of shabuwas proven by the prosecution. The chain of

custody did not appear to be broken. The recoveryand handling of the seized drug was satisfactorily established. As correctly found by the appellate court:

Withal, the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the following circumstances showing anunbroken chain of custody over the shabuthat was seized from herein accused-appellant: (1) PO1 Yusi,
who acted as the poseur buyer during the buy-bust operation, was the one who received the transparent plastic sachet containing a substance later identified as shabu from the accused-appellant; (2) the
said transparent plastic sachet was then brought to the barangayoutpost where the same was marked "MVY" and a confiscation receipt was prepared by PO1 Yusi; (3) thereafter, the said sachetwas
turned over to the Mabalacat Municipal Police Station; (4) in the said station, Chief Inspector Ritchie Duldulao, in behalf of P/Supt. Manulid, prepared the request addressed to the PNP Regional Crime
Laboratory Office 3 for the laboratory examination of the substance contained in the said plastic sachet; (5) after preparing the said request, PO1 Yusi personally delivered the said request together with

the substance contained inthe said plastic sachet to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3; and (6) the laboratory examination was conducted by P/Insp[.] Agala.20

Appellant’s defense, which is predicated on bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires
strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. 21 Bare denial of appellant cannot prevail over the
positive testimonies of the three police officers.22 Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against
appellant.

In fine, it has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant sold shabu.