People v. Martinez

3/25/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637 3/25/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
792
G.R. No. 191366. December 13, 2010.* 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Martinez

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES, EDGAR DIZON Y
FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO, and their houses, papers and effects; Instances were Arrests and
RAFAEL GONZALES Y CUNANAN, accused-appellants. Seizures are Allowed even in the Absence of a Warrant.—The State
cannot, in a manner contrary to its constitutional guarantee,
intrude into the persons of its citizens as well as into their houses,
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Court has the power papers and effects. x x x This constitutional guarantee, however,
to correct any error, even if unassigned, if such is necessary in is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures
arriving at a just decision, especially when the transcendental without warrant. Arrests and seizures in the following instances
matter of life and liberty is at stake; Time and again, the Court are allowed even in the absence of a warrant—(i) warrantless
has reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere search incidental to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in
tools intended to facilitate the attainment of justice, rather than “plain view”; (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented
frustrate it.—Although the admissibility of the evidence was not warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) stop and frisk; and
raised as in issue by the accused, it has been held that this Court (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances.
has the power to correct any error, even if unassigned, if such is
necessary in arriving at a just decision, especially when the Same; Same; Same; Probable Cause; Probable cause has been
transcendental matter of life and liberty is at stake. While it is held to signify a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a
frustrate the ends of justice, they nevertheless must not be met at cautious man’s belief that the person accused is guilty of the
the expense of substantial justice. Time and again, this Court has offense with which he is charged.—Paragraph (c) of Rule 113 is
reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools clearly inapplicable to this case. Paragraphs (a) and (b), on the
intended to facilitate the attainment of justice, rather than other hand, may be applicable and both require probable cause to
frustrate it. Technicalities should never be used to defeat be present in order for a warrantless arrest to be valid. Probable
substantive rights. Thus, despite the procedural lapses of the cause has been held to signify a reasonable ground of suspicion
accused, this Court shall rule on the admissibility of the evidence supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
in the case at bench. The clear infringement of the accused’s right warrant a cautious man’s belief that the person accused is guilty
to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures of the offense with which he is charged.
cannot be ignored. Same; Same; Same; Same; The grounds of suspicion are
Constitutional Law; Arrests; Searches and Seizures; A waiver reasonable when the suspicion, that the person to be arrested is
of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of probably guilty of committing an offense, is based on actual facts,
the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal that is, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
warrantless arrest.—The accused is estopped from assailing the themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be
legality of his arrest if he fails to raise such issue before arrested.—It has been held that personal knowledge of facts in
arraignment. However, this waiver is limited only to the arrest. arrests without warrant must be based upon probable cause,
The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
over the person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal warrantless The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when the suspicion, that
arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing an
evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest. offense, is based on actual facts, that is, supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the
Same; Same; Same; The State cannot, in a manner contrary to probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.
its constitutional guarantee, intrude into the persons of its citizens
Same; Same; Same; Elements of Plain View.—Neither can it
as well as into
be said that the subject items were seized in plain view. The
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/36

elements of plainview are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring
valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the
the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the
inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be court.
where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; Same; Same; Same; Same; Proper procedure for the custody of
and, (d) “plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without seized or confiscated items in dangerous drugs cases in order to
further search. ensure their identity and integrity thoroughly discussed in People
793 v. Habana, 614 SCRA 433
794
VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 793
People vs. Martinez 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Martinez

Same; Same; Same; Evidence procured on the occasion of an
unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the (2010.—People v. Habana, 614 SCRA 433 (2010), thoroughly
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded.—The discusses the proper procedure for the custody of seized or
apprehending officers should have first conducted a surveillance confiscated items in dangerous drugs cases in order to ensure
considering that the identity and address of one of the accused their identity and integrity, as follows: “Usually, the police officer
were already ascertained. After conducting the surveillance and who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising
determining the existence of probable cause, then a search officer, who would then send it by courier to the police crime
warrant should have been secured prior to effecting arrest and laboratory for testing. Since it is unavoidable that possession of
seizure. The arrest being illegal, the ensuing search as a result the substance changes hand a number of times, it is imperative
thereof is likewise illegal. Evidence procured on the occasion of an for the officer who seized the substance from the suspect to place
unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the his marking on its plastic container and seal the same, preferably
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded. The with adhesive tape that cannot be removed without leaving a tear
subject items seized during the illegal arrest are thus on the plastic container. At the trial, the officer can then identify
inadmissible. The drug, being the very corpus delicti of the crime the seized substance and the procedure he observed to preserve
of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, its inadmissibility thus its integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory. If the substance
precludes conviction, and calls for the acquittal of the accused. is not in a plastic container, the officer should put it in one and
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Possession of seal the same. In this way the substance would assuredly reach
Dangerous Drugs; Essential Elements to Establish Illegal the laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the
Possession of Dangerous Drugs.—The essential requisites to accused. Further, after the laboratory technician tests and
establish illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (i) the accused verifies the nature of the substance in the container, he should
was in possession of the dangerous drug, (ii) such possession is put his own mark on the plastic container and seal it again with a
not authorized by law, and (iii) the accused freely and consciously new seal since the police officer’s seal has been broken. At the
possessed the dangerous drug. Additionally, this being a case for trial, the technician can then describe the sealed condition of the
violation of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of plastic container when it was handed to him and testify on the
the crime is (iv) the possession of the dangerous drug must have procedure he took afterwards to preserve its integrity. If the
occurred during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the
the proximate company of at least two (2) persons. prosecution would have to present every police officer, messenger,
laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain of
Same; Same; Same; Chain of Custody Rule; Existence of the
custody, no matter how briefly one’s possession has been. Each of
drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of
them has to testify that the substance, although unsealed, has not
dangerous drugs and, thus, a condition sine qua non for
been tampered with or substituted while in his care.”
conviction; In order to establish the existence of the drug, its chain
of custody must be sufficiently established.—The existence of the Same; Same; Same; Same; Instances where non-compliance
drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of with the prescribed procedural requirements will not necessarily
dangerous drugs and, thus, a condition sine qua non for render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid.—
conviction. In order to establish the existence of the drug, its Non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will
chain of custody must be sufficiently established. The chain of not necessarily render the seizure and custody of the items void
custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding and invalid, provided that (i) there is a justifiable ground for such
non-compliance, and (ii) the integrity and evidentiary value of the deviation from the regular performance of duty. Where the official
seized items are properly preserved. In this case, however, no act in question is irregular on its face, the presumption of
justifiable ground is found availing, and it is apparent that there regularity cannot stand. In this case, the official acts of the law
was a failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary enforcers were clearly shown and proven to be irregular. When
value of the seized items to ensure the identity of the corpus challenged by the evidence of a flawed chain of custody, the
delicti from the time of seizure to the time of presentation in presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of
court. innocence of the accused.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The suddenness of the situation Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Court once again takes note
cannot justify non-compliance with the requirements; In case of of the growing number of acquittals for dangerous drugs cases due
warrantless seizures to the failure of law enforcers to observe the proper arrest, search
and seizure procedure under the law.—This Court once again
795 takes note of the growing number of acquittals for dangerous
drugs cases due to the failure of law enforcers to observe the
proper arrest, search and seizure procedure under the law. Some
VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 795
bona
People vs. Martinez
796
nothing prevents the apprehending officer from immediately

conducting the physical inventory and photography of the items at 796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
their place of seizure.—The Court does not find such to be a
justifiable ground to excuse non-compliance. The suddenness of People vs. Martinez
the situation cannot justify non-compliance with the
requirements. The police officers were not prevented from fide arrests and seizures in dangerous drugs cases result in the
preparing an inventory and taking photographs. In fact, Section acquittal of the accused because drug enforcement operatives
21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides specifically that in case compromise the integrity and evidentiary worth of the seized
of warrantless seizures, the inventory and photographs shall be items. It behooves this Court to remind law enforcement agencies
done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the to exert greater effort to apply the rules and procedures governing
apprehending officer/team. Whatever effect the suddenness of the the custody, control, and handling of seized drugs.
situation may have had should have dissipated by the time they
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The lapses in procedure
reached the police station, as the suspects had already been
must be recognized, addressed and explained in terms of their
arrested and the items seized. Moreover, it has been held that in
justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the
case of warrantless seizures nothing prevents the apprehending
evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved.—It is
officer from immediately conducting the physical inventory and
recognized that strict compliance with the legal prescriptions of
photography of the items at their place of seizure, as it is more in
R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible. Thus, as earlier stated,
keeping with the law’s intent to preserve their integrity and
non-compliance therewith is not necessarily fatal. However, the
evidentiary value.
lapses in procedure must be recognized, addressed and explained
Same; Same; Same; Same; Non-compliance with Section 21 of in terms of their justifiable grounds, and the integrity and
Republic Act No. 9165 does not affect the admissibility of the evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have
evidence but only its weight.—Let it be stressed that non- been preserved.
compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not affect the Same; Same; Same; Court notes the practice of law enforcers
admissibility of the evidence but only its weight. Thus, had the of filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases where the presence of
subject items in this case been admissible, their evidentiary merit dangerous drugs as basis for possession is only and solely in the
and probative value would be insufficient to warrant conviction. form of residue; Although not incorrect, it would be more in
Same; Same; Same; Same; Presumption of Regularity; When keeping with the intent of the law to file charges under Sec. 15
challenged by the evidence of a flawed chain of custody, the instead in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use,
presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of provided that there is a positive confirmatory test result as
innocence of the accused.—It may be true that where no ill motive required under Sec. 15.—On a final note, this Court takes the
can be attributed to the police officers, the presumption of opportunity to be instructive on Sec. 11 (Possession of Dangerous
regularity in the performance of official duty should prevail. Drugs) and Sec. 15 (Use of Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165,
However, such presumption obtains only when there is no with regard to the charges that are filed by law enforcers. This

Court notes the practice of law enforcers of filing charges under possess dangerous drugs (shabu residues) contained in empty
Sec. 11 in cases where the presence of dangerous drugs as basis plastic sachets and rolled aluminum foil, during a party, or at a
for possession is only and solely in the form of residue, being social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at
subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not least two (2) person[s].
incorrect, it would be more in keeping with the intent of the law to Contrary to Section 13, Article II, R.A. 9165.”3
file charges under Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first
time offenders of drug use, provided that there is a positive _______________
confirmatory test result as required under Sec. 15. The minimum
penalty under the last paragraph of Sec. 11 for the possession of 1 Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr. with
residue is imprisonment of twelve years and one day, while the Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and Associate Justice Japar B.
penalty under Sec. 15 for first time offenders of drug use is a Dimaampao, concurring.
minimum of six months rehabilitation in a government center. To 2 Records, pp. 140-145. Penned by Judge Emma M. Torio.
file charges under Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone would 3 Id., at p. 1.
frustrate the objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and
798
provide them with an opportunity to recover for a second chance
at life.
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. People vs. Martinez
797
Version of the Prosecution
As culled from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses,
VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 797 Police Officer 1 Bernard Azardon (PO1 Azardon), one of the
apprehending officers, and Police Inspector Lady Ellen
People vs. Martinez
Maranion (P/Insp. Maranion), the forensic chemical officer,
it appears that on September 2, 2006, at around 12:45
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. o’clock in the afternoon, PO1 Azardon was on duty at the
Public Attorney’s Office for accused Rafael Gonzales. Police Community Precinct II along Arellano Street,
Hermogenes S. Decano for accused Arnold Martinez, Dagupan City, when a concerned citizen entered the
Rezin Martinez and Edgar Dizon. precinct and reported that a pot session was going on in the
house of accused Rafael Gonzales (Gonzales) in Trinidad
MENDOZA, J.: Subdivision, Dagupan City. Upon receipt of the report, PO1
This is an appeal from the August 7, 2009 Decision1 of Azardon, PO1 Alejandro Dela Cruz (PO1 Dela Cruz), and
the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. HC-NO. 03269, members of the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team
which affirmed the February 13, 2008 Decision2 of the hied to Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City. Upon inquiry
Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City (RTC), in from people in the area, the house of Gonzales was located.
Criminal Case No. 2006-0525-D, finding the accused guilty As the police officers entered the gate of the house, they
of violating Section 13, in relation to Section 11, Article II saw accused Orlando Doria (Doria) coming out of the side
of Republic Act No. 9165 for Possession of Dangerous door and immediately arrested him. Inside the house, they
Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings. saw accused Gonzales, Arnold Martinez (A. Martinez),
Edgar Dizon (Dizon), and Rezin Martinez (R. Martinez) in a
The Facts
room. The four were surprised by the presence of the police.
The Information indicting the accused reads: In front of them were open plastic sachets (containing
shabu residue), pieces of rolled used aluminum foil and
“That on or about the 2nd day of September 2006, in the City of pieces of used aluminum foil.
Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this The accused were arrested and brought to the police
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ARNOLD precinct. The items found in the room were seized and
MARTINEZ y ANGELES, EDGAR DIZON y FERRER, REZIN turned over to the Pangasinan Provincial Police Crime
MARTINEZ y CAROLINO, ROLAND DORIA y DIAZ and Laboratory Officer, P/Insp. Maranion. The latter conducted
RAFAEL GONZALES y CUNANAN, without authority of law, a laboratory examination on the seized items and all 115
confederating together, acting jointly and helping one another, did plastic sachets, 11 pieces of rolled used aluminum foil, and
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally, sniff and 27 of the 49 pieces of used aluminum foil tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused were _______________

subjected to a drug test and, except for Doria, they were
4 Id., at p. 145.
found to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Version of the Defense 800
The defense, through its witnesses, accused A. Martinez,
Dizon, and R. Martinez, claimed that in the morning of
September 2, 2006, 800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Martinez
799
The Ruling of the CA

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 799 The CA ruled that there was sufficient evidence to
People vs. Martinez support the findings of the RTC as to the constructive
possession of the dangerous drugs by the accused. It
the three of them were along Arellano Street in Trinidad further held that although the procedure regarding the
Subdivision, Dagupan City, to meet with a certain Apper custody and disposition of evidence prescribed by Section
who bumped the passenger jeep of R. Martinez and who 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not strictly complied with, the
was to give the materials for the painting of said jeep. As integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were
they were going around the subdivision looking for Apper, nonetheless safeguarded. The CA was of the view that the
they saw Gonzales in front of his house and asked him if he presumption of regularity in the performance of official
noticed a person pass by. While they were talking, Doria duty was not sufficiently controverted by the accused.
arrived. It was then that five to seven policemen emerged Not in conformity, the accused now interposes this
and apprehended them. They were handcuffed and brought appeal before this Court praying for the reversal of the
to the police station in Perez, Dagupan City, where they subject decision, presenting the following
were incarcerated and charged with sniffing shabu.
Assignment of Errors
The Ruling of the RTC
The case against Doria was dismissed on a demurrer to For accused Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon and Rezin
evidence. Martinez
On February 13, 2008, the RTC rendered its decision, 1. The lower court erred in finding the accused-
the dispositve portion of which reads: appellants to be having a pot session at the time
of their arrest;
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
2. The lower court erred in not seeing through
rendered finding accused ARNOLD MARTINEZ y Angeles,
the antics of the police to plant the shabu
EDGAR DIZON y Ferrer, REZIN MARTINEZ y Carolino, and
paraphernalia to justify the arrest of the
RAFAEL GONZALES y Cunanan GUILTY beyond reasonable
accused-appellants without warrant;
doubt of the crime of Possession of Dangerous Drugs During
3. The lower court erred in not finding that the
Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings defined and penalized
corpus delicti has not been sufficiently
under Section 13 in relation to Section 11, Article II of Republic
established;
Act 9165, and each of them is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
4. The lower court erred in not finding the
life imprisonment and to pay the fine in the amount of
uncorroborated testimony of PO1 Azardon
P500,000.00, and to pay the cost of suit.
insufficient to convict the accused-appellants of
The subject items are hereby forfeited in favor of the
the crime charged;
government and to be disposed of in accordance with the law.
5. The lower court erred in not acquitting the
SO ORDERED.”4
accused-appellants.
The RTC was of the view that the positive testimony of
801
prosecution witness PO1 Azardon, without any showing of
ill-motive on his part, prevailed over the defenses of denial
and alibi put up by the accused. The accused were held to VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 801
have been in constructive possession of the subject items. A People vs. Martinez
conspiracy was also found present as there was a common
purpose to possess the dangerous drug.
For accused Rafael Gonzales
I Technicalities should never be used to defeat substantive

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING rights.9 Thus, despite the procedural lapses of the accused,
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE this Court shall rule on the admissibility of the evidence in
PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO OVERTHROW THE the case at bench. The clear infringement of the accused’s
CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. right to be protected against unreasonable searches and
II seizures cannot be ignored.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING The State cannot, in a manner contrary to its
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE constitutional guarantee, intrude into the persons of its
PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN citizens as well as into their houses, papers and effects.10
OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGED CONFISCATED DRUG. Sec. 2, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution provides:
After an assiduous assessment of the evidentiary “Section 2.—The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
records, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
the guilt of the accused. The principal reasons are 1] that seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
the evidence against the accused are inadmissible; and 2] inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
that granting the same to be admissible, the chain of except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the
custody has not been duly established. judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
Illegal Arrest, Search and Seizure complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
Indeed, the accused is estopped from assailing the describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
legality of his arrest if he fails to raise such issue before seized.”
arraignment.5 However, this waiver is limited only to the
arrest. The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction This constitutional guarantee, however, is not a blanket
of the court over the person of the accused. A waiver of an prohibition against all searches and seizures without
illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of warrant. Arrests and seizures in the following instances
the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal are allowed even in the absence of a warrant—(i)
warrantless arrest.6 warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;11 (ii)
Although the admissibility of the evidence was not search of evidence in “plain view;” (iii) search of a moving
raised as in issue by the accused, it has been held that this vehicle; (iv)
Court has the power to correct any error, even if
unassigned, if such is necessary in arriving at a just _______________
decision,7 especially when the transcendental matter of life
8 People v. Bodoso, 446 Phil. 838, 849-850; 398 SCRA 642, 648 (2003).
9 San Luis v. Rojas, G.R. No. 159127, March 3, 2008, 547 SCRA 345,
_______________
357-358.
5 People v. Palma, G.R. No. 189279, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 784. 10 People v. Siton, G.R. No. 169364, September 18, 2009, 600 SCRA
6 People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 633. 476, 493.
7 C.F. Sharp & Co., Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 431 Phil. 11, 22; 11 Rules of Court, Rule 126, Sec. 13.
381 SCRA 314, 321 (2002).

803
802
VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 803
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED People vs. Martinez
People vs. Martinez
consented warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) stop
8
and liberty is at stake. While it is true that rules of and frisk; and (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances.12
procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate This case would appear to fall under either a
the ends of justice, they nevertheless must not be met at warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest or a plain
the expense of substantial justice. Time and again, this view search, both of which require a lawful arrest in order
Court has reiterated the doctrine that the rules of to be considered valid exceptions to the constitutional
procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the guarantee. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
attainment of justice, rather than frustrate it. Procedure provides for the circumstances under which a
warrantless arrest is lawful. Thus:
“Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer or a A: I think it was no longer recorded, sir.
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: Q: In other words, you did not even bother to get the personal data or
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, identity of the person who told you that he was allegedly informed
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; that there was an ongoing pot session in the house of Rafael
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable Gonzales?
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or A: What I know is that he is a jeepney driver of a downtown jeepney
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; but he does not want to be identified because he was afraid, sir.
and Q: And likewise, he did not inform you who told him that there was an
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped ongoing pot session in the house of Rafael Gonzales?
from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final A: No more, sir.
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or Q: But upon receiving such report from that jeepney driver you
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to immediately formed a group and went to the place of Rafael
another. Gonzales?
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person A: Yes, sir.
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest x x x
police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Q: When you were at the open gate of the premises of Rafael Gonzales,
section 7 of Rule 112.” you could not see what is happening inside the house of Rafael
Gonzales?
A review of the facts reveal that the arrest of the A: Yes, sir.
accused was illegal and the subject items were confiscated Q: You did not also see the alleged paraphernalia as well as the plastic
as an incident thereof. According to the testimony of PO1 sachet of shabu on the table while you were outside the premises of
Azardon and his Joint Affidavit13 with PO1 Dela Cruz, they the property of Rafael Gonzales?
proceeded to, and entered, the house of accused Gonzales
805
based solely on the report of a concerned citizen that a pot
session was going on in said house, to wit:
VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 805
People vs. Martinez
_______________
x x x
12 People v. Bolasa, 378 Phil. 1073, 1078-1079; 321 SCRA 459, 464-465
Q: Before they entered the premises they could not see the
(1999).
paraphernalia?
13 Exhibit “E,” folder of exhibits, p. 11.
COURT: Answer.
804 A: Of course because they were inside the room, how could we see
them, sir.
Q: But still you entered the premises, only because a certain person
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED who told you that he was informed by another person that there
People vs. Martinez was an ongoing pot session going on inside the house of Rafael
Gonzales?
Q: I go back to the information referred to you by the informant, did he A: Yes, sir.
not tell you how many persons were actually conducting the pot Q: And that is the only reason why you barged in inside the house of
session? Rafael Gonzales and you arrested the persons you saw?
A: Yes, sir. A: Yes, sir.14
Q: When you went to the place of Rafael Gonzales, of course you were
Paragraph (c) of Rule 113 is clearly inapplicable to this
not armed with a search warrant, correct?
case. Paragraphs (a) and (b), on the other hand, may be
A: None, sir.
applicable and both require probable cause to be present in
Q: Before the information was given to you by your alleged informant,
order for a warrantless arrest to be valid. Probable cause
you did not know personally Rafael Gonzales?
has been held to signify a reasonable ground of suspicion
A: I have not met [him] yet but I heard his name, sir.
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
Q: When this informant told you that he was told that there was [an]
themselves to warrant a cautious man’s belief that the
ongoing pot session in the house of Rafael Gonzales, was this report
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is
to you placed in the police blotter before you proceeded to the house
charged.15
of Rafael Gonzales?

Although this Court has ruled in several dangerous first through the window before they saw and ascertained the
drugs cases16 that tipped information is sufficient probable activities of accused-appellants inside the room. In like manner,
cause to effect a warrantless search,17 such rulings cannot the search cannot be categorized as a search of a moving vehicle, a
be applied in the case at bench because said cases involve consented warrantless search, a customs search, or a stop and
either a buy-bust operation or drugs in transit, basically, frisk; it cannot even fall under exigent and emergency
circumstances other than the sole tip of an informer as circumstances, for the evidence at hand is bereft of any such
basis for the arrest. None of these drug cases involve police showing.
officers entering a house without warrant to effect arrest On the contrary, it indicates that the apprehending officers
and seizure based should have conducted first a surveillance considering that the
identities and address of the suspected culprits were already
_______________ ascertained. After conducting the surveillance and determining
the existence of probable cause for arresting accused-appellants,
14 TSN, February 23, 2007, pp. 10-16. they should have secured a search warrant prior to effecting a
15 People v. Ayangao, 471 Phil. 379, 388; 427 SCRA 428, 433 (2004). valid arrest and seizure. The arrest being illegal ab initio, the
16 Id., People v. Valdez, 363 Phil. 481; 304 SCRA 140 (1999); People v. accompanying search was likewise illegal. Every evidence thus
Montilla, 349 Phil. 640; 285 SCRA 703 (1998). obtained during the illegal
17 Id.
_______________
806
18 Supra note 13.
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 807
People vs. Martinez

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 807
solely on an informer’s tip. The case of People v. Bolasa18 is People vs. Martinez
informative on this matter.
In People v. Bolasa, an anonymous caller tipped off the search cannot be used against accused-appellants; hence, their
police that a man and a woman were repacking prohibited acquittal must follow in faithful obeisance to the fundamental
drugs at a certain house. The police immediately proceeded law.”19
to the house of the suspects. They walked towards the
house accompanied by their informer. When they reached It has been held that personal knowledge of facts in
the house, they peeped inside through a small window and arrests without warrant must be based upon probable
saw a man and woman repacking marijuana. They then cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds
entered the house, introduced themselves as police officers, of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when
confiscated the drug paraphernalia, and arrested the the suspicion, that the person to be arrested is probably
suspects. This Court ruled: guilty of committing an offense, is based on actual facts,
that is, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
“The manner by which accused-appellants were apprehended themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the
does not fall under any of the above-enumerated categories. person to be arrested. 20
Perforce, their arrest is illegal. First, the arresting officers had no As to paragraph (a) of Section 5 of Rule 113, the
personal knowledge that at the time of their arrest, accused- arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at the
appellants had just committed, were committing, or were about to time of the arrest, accused had just committed, were
commit a crime. Second, the arresting officers had no personal committing, or were about to commit a crime, as they had
knowledge that a crime was committed nor did they have any no probable cause to enter the house of accused Rafael
reasonable ground to believe that accused-appellants committed Gonzales in order to arrest them. As to paragraph (b), the
it. Third, accused-appellants were not prisoners who have escaped arresting officers had no personal knowledge of facts and
from a penal establishment. circumstances that would lead them to believe that the
Neither can it be said that the objects were seized in plain accused had just committed an offense. As admitted in the
view. First, there was no valid intrusion. As already discussed, testimony of PO1 Azardon, the tip originated from a
accused-appellants were illegally arrested. Second, the evidence, concerned citizen who himself had no personal knowledge
i.e., the tea bags later on found to contain marijuana, was not of the information that was reported to the police:
inadvertently discovered. The police officers intentionally peeped

Q: Mr. Witness, you claimed that the reason for apprehending all the and, (d) “plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence
accused was based on a tip-off by an informant? without further search.22
A: Yes, sir. The evidence was not inadvertently discovered as the
Q: What exactly [did] that informant tell you? police officers intentionally entered the house with no prior
A: He told us that somebody told him that there was an ongoing pot surveillance or investigation before they discovered the
session in the house of one of the accused Rafael Gonzales, sir. accused with the subject items. If
Q: You mean to say that it was not the informant himself to whom the
information originated but from somebody else?
_______________
A: That was what he told me, sir.
Q: Because of that you proceeded to where the alleged pot session was 21 TSN, February 23, 2007, pp. 3-5.
going on? [No Answer] 22 Supra note 13.
_______________
809
19 Supra note 13.
20 People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 632; 301 SCRA 668, 709 (1999). VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 809
808
People vs. Martinez
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the prior peeking of the police officers in Bolasa was held to
People vs. Martinez be insufficient to constitute plain view, then more so should
the warrantless search in this case be struck down. Neither
Q: Did you[r] informant particularly pinpointed [sic] to where the can the search be considered as a search of a moving
alleged pot session was going on? vehicle, a consented warrantless search, a customs search,
A: No more because he did not go with us, sir. a stop and frisk, or one under exigent and emergency
Q: So you merely relied on what he said that something or a pot circumstances.
session was going on somewhere in Arellano but you don’t know the The apprehending officers should have first conducted a
exact place where the pot session was going on? surveillance considering that the identity and address of
A: Yes, sir. one of the accused were already ascertained. After
Q: And your informant has no personal knowledge as to the conducting the surveillance and determining the existence
veracity of the alleged pot session because he claimed that he of probable cause, then a search warrant should have been
derived that information from somebody else? secured prior to effecting arrest and seizure. The arrest
A: This is what he told us that somebody told him that there was an being illegal, the ensuing search as a result thereof is
ongoing pot session, sir. likewise illegal. Evidence procured on the occasion of an
Q: Despite of [sic] that information you proceeded to where? unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for
A: Trinidad Subdivision, sir. being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be
x x x excluded.23 The subject items seized during the illegal
Q: Mr. Witness, did your informant named [sic] those included in the arrest are thus inadmissible. The drug, being the very
alleged pot session? corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous
A: No, sir. drugs, its inadmissibility thus precludes conviction, and
Q: That was, because your informant don’t [sic] know physically what calls for the acquittal of the accused.
was really happening there? As has been noted previously by this Court, some
A: He was told by another person that there was an ongoing pot lawmen, prosecutors and judges have glossed over illegal
session there, sir.21 [Emphasis supplied] searches and seizures in cases where law enforcers are able
to present the alleged evidence of the crime, regardless of
Neither can it be said that the subject items were seized the methods by which they were obtained. This attitude
in plain view. The elements of plainview are: (a) a prior tramples on constitutionally-guaranteed rights in the name
valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in of law enforcement. It is ironic that such enforcement of the
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their law fosters the breakdown of our system of justice and the
official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently eventual denigration of society. While this Court
discovered by the police who have the right to be where appreciates and encourages the efforts of law enforcers to
they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; uphold the law and to preserve the peace and security of
society, we nevertheless admonish them to act with
deliberate care and within the parameters set by the condition sine qua non for conviction. In order to establish
Constitution and the law.24 the existence of the drug, its
_______________ _______________
23 People v. Valdez, 395 Phil. 206, 218; 341 SCRA 25, 37 (2000). 25 People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA
24 People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 633; 377, 390-391.
citing People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007, 516 SCRA
811
463, 484-485.
810
VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 811
People vs. Martinez
People vs. Martinez chain of custody must be sufficiently established. The chain
of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts
Chain of Custody regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through
Even granting that the seized items are admissible as the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized
evidence, the acquittal of the accused would still be in order drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic
for failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the chemist, and finally to the court.26 Malillin v. People was
chain of custody requirement in dangerous drugs cases. the first in a growing number of cases to explain the
The accused contend that the identity of the seized drug importance of chain of custody in dangerous drugs cases, to
was not established with moral certainty as the chain of wit:
custody appears to be questionable, the authorities having
“As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody
failed to comply with Sections 21 and 86 of R.A. No. 9165,
rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
and Dangerous Drug Board (DDB) Resolution No. 03,
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
Series of 1979, as amended by Board Regulation No. 2,
question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include
Series of 1990. They argue that there was no prior
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such
(PDEA), no inventory of the confiscated items conducted at
a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe
the crime scene, no photograph of the items taken, no
how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
compliance with the rule requiring the accused to sign the
happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in
inventory and to give them copies thereof, and no showing
which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered
of how the items were handled from the time of confiscation
to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe
up to the time of submission to the crime laboratory for
the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in
testing. Therefore, the corpus delicti was not proven,
the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in
thereby producing reasonable doubt as to their guilt. Thus,
the chain to have possession of the same.”27
they assert that the presumption of innocence in their favor
was not overcome by the presumption of regularity in the Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,28
performance of official duty. defines chain of custody as follows:
The essential requisites to establish illegal possession of
dangerous drugs are: (i) the accused was in possession of “b. “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized
the dangerous drug, (ii) such possession is not authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or
by law, and (iii) the accused freely and consciously plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
possessed the dangerous drug.25 Additionally, this being a stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
case for violation of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165, an forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
additional element of the crime is (iv) the possession of the destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item
dangerous drug must have occurred during a party, or at a shall include the identity and signature of the person who held
social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
at least two (2) persons. such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping
The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the and used in court as evidence, and the final disposition;”
crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and, thus, a
_______________ If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should

put it in one and seal the same. In this way the substance would
26 People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA
assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it was seized
259, 274. from the accused. Further, after the laboratory technician tests
27 G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-633. and verifies the nature of the substance in the container, he
28 Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous should put his own mark on the plastic container and seal it again
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory with a new seal since the police officer’s seal has been broken. At
Equipment. the trial, the technician can then describe the sealed condition of
812
the plastic
813

People vs. Martinez VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 813
People vs. Martinez
Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
provides for safeguards for the protection of the identity container when it was handed to him and testify on the procedure
and integrity of dangerous drugs seized, to wit: he took afterwards to preserve its integrity.
If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or prosecution would have to present every police officer, messenger,
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain of
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, custody, no matter how briefly one’s possession has been. Each of
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.—The them has to testify that the substance, although unsealed, has not
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, been tampered with or substituted while in his care.”29
plant sources of dangerous drugs controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 further elaborates, and
for proper disposition in the following manner: provides for, the possibility of non-compliance with the
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of prescribed procedure:
the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
representative from the media and the Department of Justice
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
People v. Habana thoroughly discusses the proper required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
procedure for the custody of seized or confiscated items in thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph
dangerous drugs cases in order to ensure their identity and shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
integrity, as follows: served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
“Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance
turns it over to a supervising officer, who would then send it by with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long
courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. Since it is as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
unavoidable that possession of the substance changes hand a items are properly preserved by the apprehending
number of times, it is imperative for the officer who seized the officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
substance from the suspect to place his marking on its plastic seizures of and custody over said items. [Emphasis supplied]
container and seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape that
cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. Accordingly, non-compliance with the prescribed
At the trial, the officer can then identify the seized substance and procedural requirements will not necessarily render the
the procedure he observed to preserve its integrity until it reaches seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, provided
the crime laboratory. that (i) there is a justifiable ground for such non-
compliance, and (ii) the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved. In this case, 30 Exhibit “E,” folder of exhibits, p. 11.
however, no justifiable ground is found availing, and it is 31 Exhibit “G,” folder of exhibits, p. 13.
apparent that there was a failure to properly preserve the 32 Exhibit “A,” folder of exhibits, p. 6.
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items to
815
ensure the identity of the corpus delicti from the
_______________ VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 815
29 G.R. No. 188900, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 433.

People vs. Martinez
814 The letter-request and above-mentioned items were

submitted to P/Insp. Maranion by SPO3 Froilan Esteban
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED (SPO3 Esteban). Final Chemistry Report No. D-042-06L
listed the specimens which were submitted for testing, to
People vs. Martinez wit:
time of seizure to the time of presentation in court. A SPECIMENS SUBMITTED:

review of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and A–A1 to A115—One Hundred fifteen (115) open transparent
the documentary records of the case reveals irreparably plastic sachet with tag each containing suspected shabu residue
broken links in the chain of custody. without markings.
According to the apprehending police officers in their B–B1 to B11—Eleven (11) rolled used aluminum foil with tag
Joint Affidavit, the following were confiscated from the each containing suspected shabu residue without markings.
accused, to wit: C–C1 to C49—Forty-nine (49) used aluminum foil with tag each
containing suspected shabu residue without markings.33
a) Several pcs of used empty plastic sachets containing suspected [Emphases supplied]
shabu residues.
b) Eight used (8) disposable lighters ( two (2) pcs colored orange, two Three days after the subject items were seized, or on
(2) pcs colored yellow, one (1) pc colored green & one (1) pc colored September 5, 2006, a Confiscation Receipt was issued by
white ). PO1 Azardon and PO1 Dela Cruz, which reads:
c) Several pcs of used rolled aluminum foil containing suspected
DCPS AID SOTG 05 September 2006
shabu residues.
CONFISCATION RECEIPT
d) Several pcs of used cut aluminum foil containing suspected
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
shabu residues.
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on or about 12:45 noon of
e) One (1) pc glass tube containing suspected shabu residues.30
September 4, 2006, we together with our precinct supervisor,
[Emphases supplied]
SPO4 Pedro Belen Jr., and SWAT members composed of SPO1
Marlon Decano, PO3 Manuel Garcia, PO2 Adriano Cepiroto and
At the police station, the case, the accused, and the
PO1 Aldrin Guarin apprehended the following names of persons
above-mentioned items were indorsed to Duty Investigator
of ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES, 37 yrs old, married,
Senior Police Officer 1 Pedro Urbano, Jr. (SPO1 Urbano)
jobless, a resident of Lucao Dist., this city; EDGAR DIZON Y
for proper disposition.31 A letter-request for laboratory
FERRER, 36 yrs old, single, tricycle driver, a resident of 471
examination was prepared by Police Superintendent Edgar
Lucao Dist., this city. REZIN MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO, 44 yrs
Orduna Basbag for the following items:
old, married, jitney driver, a resident of Lucao Disttrict this city;
a) Pieces of used empty small plastic sachets with suspected shabu ROLAND DORIA Y DIAZ, 39 yrs old, married, businessman,
residues marked “DC&A-1.” resident of Cabeldatan, Malasiqui, Pangasinan and RAFAEL
b) Pieces of used rolled and cut aluminum foil with suspected shabu GONZALES Y CUNANAN, 49 yrs old, separated, jobless and a
residues marked “DC&A-2.” resident of Trinidad Subd., Arellano-Bani this city.
c) Pieces of used cut aluminum foil with suspected shabu residues
marked “DC&A-3.”32 _______________
[Emphases supplied]
33 Exhibit “D,” folder of exhibits, p. 10.
_______________ 816

816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED physical inventory was conducted in the presence of the
People vs. Martinez accused, or their representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the DOJ, and any
Suspects were duly informed of their constitutional rights and elected public official. Thus, no inventory was prepared,
were brought to Dagupan City Police Station, Perez Market Site signed, and provided to the accused in the manner required
Dagupan City and indorsed to Duty Desk Officer to record the by law. PO1 Azardon, in his testimony,36 admitted that no
incident and the sachet of suspected Shabu Paraphernalias photographs were taken. The only discernable reason
were brought to PNP Crime Laboratory, Lingayen, Pangasinan proffered by him for the failure to comply with the
for Laboratory Examination. prescribed procedure was that the situation happened so
Seizing Officer: suddenly. Thus:
(sgd.) (sgd.) Q: But upon receiving such report from that jeepney driver you
PO1 Bernard B Azardon PO1 Alejandro Dela Cruz immediately formed a group and went to the place of Rafael
Affiant Affiant Gonzales?
Remarks: A: Yes, sir.
Refused to Signed Q: Such that you did not even inform the PDEA before you barged in
Refused to Signed that place of Rafael Gonzales?
Refused to Signed A: It was so suddenly, [sic] sir.
Refused to Signed Q: And that explains the reason why you were not able to have
Refused to Signed34 pictures taken, is that correct?
[Emphases supplied] A: Yes, sir.37
[Emphasis supplied]
The 115 open transparent plastic sachets, 11 pieces of
rolled used aluminum foil, and 27 (of the 49) pieces of used The Court does not find such to be a justifiable ground to
aluminum foil, all containing shabu residue, as identified excuse non-compliance. The suddenness of the situation
in the Final Chemistry Report, were presented in court and cannot justify non-compliance with the requirements. The
marked as Exhibits “H” and series, “I” and series, and “J” police officers were not prevented from preparing an
and series, respectively. Said items were identified by PO1 inventory and taking photographs. In fact, Section 21(a) of
Azardon and P/Insp. Maranion at the witness stand.35 the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides specifically that in case
The CA ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of of warrantless seizures, the inventory and photographs
the subject items were properly preserved as there was shall be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest
sufficient evidence to prove that the items seized from the office of the apprehending officer/team. Whatever effect the
accused were the same ones forwarded to the crime suddenness of the situation may have had should have
laboratory for examination, as shown in the Confiscation dissipated by the time they reached the police station, as
Receipt and the letter-request for laboratory examination. the suspects had already been arrested and the items
A review of the chain of custody indicates, however, that seized. Moreover, it has been held that in case of
the CA is mistaken. warrantless seizures nothing prevents the apprehending
First, the apprehending team failed to comply with officer from immediately conducting the physical inventory
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. After seizure and confiscation and photography of the items at
of the subject items, no
_______________
_______________
36 TSN, February 23, 2007, p. 7.
34 Exhibit “F,” folder of exhibits, p. 12. 37 TSN, February 23, 2007, p. 12.
35 TSN, February 9, 2007, p. 6; and TSN, January 22, 2007, pp. 10-12.
818
817

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 817
People vs. Martinez
People vs. Martinez
their place of seizure, as it is more in keeping with the
law’s intent to preserve their integrity and evidentiary
38
value. handling officer and turned over to the next officer in the chain of
This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug custody.”47 [Emphasis in the original]
cases for failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165,
resulting in the failure to properly preserve the integrity Nowhere in the testimony of PO1 Azardon or in his Joint
and evidentiary value of the seized items. Some cases are Affidavit with PO1 Dela Cruz does it appear that the
People v. Garcia,39 People v. Dela Cruz,40 People v. Dela subject items were at all marked. It was only in the letter-
Cruz,41 People v. Santos, Jr.,42 People v. Nazareno,43 People request for laboratory examination that the subject items
v. Orteza,44 Zarraga v. People,45 and People v. Kimura.46 were indicated to have been marked with “DC&A-1,”
Second, the subject items were not properly marked. The “DC&A-2” and “DC&A-3.” There is no showing, however, as
case of People v. Sanchez is instructive on the requirement to who made those markings and when they were made.
of marking, to wit: Moreover, those purported markings were never mentioned
when the subject items were identified by the prosecution
“What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule witnesses when they took the stand.
do not expressly specify is the matter of “marking” of the seized The markings appear to pertain to a group of items, that
items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized is, empty plastic sachets, rolled and cut aluminium foil,
upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and cut aluminium foil, but do not specifically pertain to
and photography when these activities are undertaken at the any individual item in each group. Furthermore, it was
police station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with only in the Chemistry Report48 that the precise number of
the “chain of custody” rule requires that the “marking” of the each type of item was indicated and enumerated. The
seized items—to truly ensure that they are the same items that Court notes that in all documents prior to said report, the
enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence— subject items were never accurately quantified but only
should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended described as “pieces,”49 “several pcs,”50 and “shabu
violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. This step paraphernallas.”51 Strangely, the Chemistry Report
initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious indicates that all the subject items had “no markings,”
and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the although each item was reported to have been marked by
apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of P/Insp. Maranion in the course of processing the subject
evidence under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or theft. items during laboratory examination and testing.52 Doubt,
For greater specificity, “marking” means the placing by the therefore, arises as to the identity of the subject items. It
apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and cannot be determined with moral certainty that the subject
signature on the item/s seized. x x x Thereafter, the seized items items seized from the accused were the
shall be placed in an envelope or an
_______________
_______________
47 Supra note 38.
38 People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 218.
48 Exhibit “C,” folder of exhibits, p. 9; Exhibit “D,” folder of exhibits, p.
39 Supra note 27.
10.
40 G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 273.
49 Exhibit “A,” folder of exhibits, p. 6.
50 Exhibit “E,” folder of exhibits, p. 11; Exhibit “G,” folder of exhibits,
p. 13.
43 G.R. No. 174771, September 11, 2007, 532 SCRA 630.
51 Exhibit “B,” folder of exhibits, p. 7; Exhibit “F,” folder of exhibits, p.
44 G.R. No. 173051, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750.
12.
45 G.R. No. 162064, March 14, 2006, 484 SCRA 639.
52 TSN, January 22, 2007, pp. 10-12.
46 471 Phil. 895; 428 SCRA 51 (2004).
820
819

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 819
People vs. Martinez People vs. Martinez
evidence bag unless the type and quantity of the seized items same ones subjected to the laboratory examination and
require a different type of handling and/or container. The presented in court.
evidence bag or container shall accordingly be signed by the

This Court has acquitted the accused for the failure and the DDB states that the apprehending officers were tipped
irregularity in the marking of seized items in dangerous off “while conducting monitoring/surveillance.” Said letter
drugs cases, such as Zarraga v. People,53 People v. also indicates, as does the Confiscation Receipt, that the
Kimura,54 and People v. Laxa.55 arrest and seizure occurred on September 4, 2006, and not
Third, the Confiscation Receipt relied upon by the September 2, 2006, as alleged in the Information. It was
prosecution and the courts below gives rise to more also mentioned in the aforementioned Certification of the
uncertainty. Instead of being prepared on the day of the Dagupan Police and Joint Affidavit of the police officers
seizure of the items, it was prepared only three days after. that a glass tube suspected to contain shabu residue was
More important, the receipt did not even indicate exactly also confiscated from the accused. Interestingly, no glass
what items were confiscated and their quantity. These are tube was submitted for laboratory examination.
basic information that a confiscation receipt should In sum, numerous lapses and irregularities in the chain
provide. The only information contained in the Confiscation of custody belie the prosecution’s position that the integrity
Receipt was the fact of arrest of the accused and the and evidentiary value of the subject items were properly
general description of the subject items as “the sachet of preserved. The two documents specifically relied on by the
suspected Shabu paraphernallas were brought to the PNP CA, the Confiscation Receipt and the letter-request for
Crime Laboratory.” The receipt is made even more dubious laboratory examination, have been shown to be grossly
by PO1 Azardon’s admission in his testimony56 that he did insufficient in proving the identity of the corpus delicti. The
not personally prepare the Confiscation Receipt and he did corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the drug
not know exactly who did so. itself. This means that proof beyond reasonable doubt of
Fourth, according to the Certification57 issued by the the identity of the prohibited drug is essential before the
Dagupan Police Station, the subject items were indorsed by accused can be found guilty.64
PO1 Dela Cruz to Duty Investigator SPO1 Urbano for Regarding the lack of prior coordination with the PDEA
proper disposition. These were later turned over by SPO3 provided in Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165, in People v. Sta.
Esteban to P/Insp. Maranion. There is, however, no Maria,65 this Court held that said section was silent as to
showing of how and when the subject items were the consequences of such failure, and said silence could not
transferred from SPO1 Urbano to SPO3 Esteban. be interpreted as a legislative intent to
Fifth, P/Insp. Maranion appears to be the last person in
the chain of custody. No witness testified on how the _______________
subject items were kept after they were tested prior to their
presentation in court. This Court 58 G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 762.
59 Supra note 27.
60 Supra note 39.
_______________
61 Supra note 28.
53 Supra note 46. 62 TSN, February 9, 2007, p. 4.
54 Supra note 47. 63 Exhibit “B,” folder of exhibits, p. 7.
55 414 Phil. 156; 361 SCRA 622 (2001). 64 People v. Cacao, G.R. No. 180870, January 22, 2010, 610 SCRA 636,
56 TSN, February 9, 2007, p. 7; TSN, February 23, 2007, pp. 6-7. 651.
57 Exhibit “G,” folder of exhibits, p. 13. 65 G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621, 631-632.
821 822
VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 821 822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Martinez People vs. Martinez
has highlighted similar shortcomings in People v. make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal,
Cervantes,58 People v. Garcia,59 People v. Sanchez,60 and nor evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest
Malillin v. People.61 inadmissible. Section 86 is explicit only in saying that the
More irregularities further darken the cloud as to the PDEA shall be the “lead agency” in the investigation and
guilt of the accused. Contrary to PO1 Azardon’s testimony62 prosecution of drug-related cases. Therefore, other law
that they were tipped off by a concerned citizen while at enforcement bodies still possess authority to perform
the police station, the Letter63 to the Executive Director of
similar functions as the PDEA as long as illegal drugs necessarily fatal. However, the lapses in procedure must be
cases will eventually be transferred to the latter. recognized, addressed and explained in terms of their
Let it be stressed that non-compliance with Section 21 of justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value
R.A. No. 9165 does not affect the admissibility of the of the evidence seized must be shown to have been
evidence but only its weight.66 Thus, had the subject items preserved.70
in this case been admissible, their evidentiary merit and On a final note, this Court takes the opportunity to be
probative value would be insufficient to warrant conviction. instructive on Sec. 1171 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs)
It may be true that where no ill motive can be attributed and
to the police officers, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty should prevail. However, such _______________
presumption obtains only when there is no deviation from
the regular performance of duty.67 Where the official act in 70 Id., at p. 785.
question is irregular on its face, the presumption of 71 Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.—The penalty of life
regularity cannot stand. imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
In this case, the official acts of the law enforcers were pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be
clearly shown and proven to be irregular. When challenged imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess
by the evidence of a flawed chain of custody, the any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of
presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the purity thereof:
presumption of innocence of the accused.68 (1) 10 grams or more of opium;
This Court once again takes note of the growing number (2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
of acquittals for dangerous drugs cases due to the failure of (3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
law enforcers to observe the proper arrest, search and (4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
seizure procedure under the law.69 Some bona fide arrests (5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”;
and seizures in dangerous drugs cases result in the (6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
acquittal of the accused because drug enforcement op- (7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not
_______________ limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or “ecstasy”,

paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA),
66 People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (GHB),
637. and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their
67 People v. Obmiranis, G.R. No. 181492, December 16, 2008, 574 derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity
SCRA 140, 156-157. possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and
68 People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 173477, February 26, 2010, 613 SCRA promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this
763. Act.
69 People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing
762, 784-785, citing People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
580 SCRA 259, 277-278. (1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
823 (P500,000.00), if the
824
VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 823
People vs. Martinez
People vs. Martinez
eratives compromise the integrity and evidentiary worth of
the seized items. It behooves this Court to remind law
enforcement agencies to exert greater effort to apply the Sec. 1572 (Use of Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165, with
rules and procedures governing the custody, control, and regard to the charges that are filed by law enforcers. This
handling of seized drugs. Court notes the practice of law enforcers of filing charges
It is recognized that strict compliance with the legal under Sec. 11 in cases where the presence of dangerous
prescriptions of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible. drugs as basis for possession is only and solely
Thus, as earlier stated, non-compliance therewith is not
_______________ confirmatory test result as required under Sec. 15. The

minimum penalty under the last paragraph of Sec. 11 for
quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” is ten (10) grams
the possession of residue is imprisonment of twelve years
or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
and one day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for first time
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life offenders of drug use is a minimum of six months
imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos rehabilitation in a government center. To file charges
(P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the under Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone would frustrate
quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten the objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and
(10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, provide them with an opportunity to recover for a second
marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride chance at life.
or “shabu”, or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or In the case at bench, the presence of dangerous drugs
“ecstasy”, PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly was only in the form of residue on the drug paraphernalia,
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic and the accused were found positive for use of dangerous
value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; drugs. Granting that the arrest was legal, the evidence
or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500) obtained admissible, and the chain of custody intact, the
grams of marijuana; and law enforcers should have filed charges under Sec. 15, R.A.
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) No. 9165 or for use of dangerous drugs and, if there was no
years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos residue at all, they should have been charged under Sec.
(P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the 1473 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and
quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties,
morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or Social Gatherings or Meetings). Sec. 14 provides that the
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”, or other maximum penalty under Sec. 1274 (Posses-
dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or “ecstasy”, PMA,
TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs _______________
and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the
73 Section 14. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and
quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than
Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
Gatherings or Meetings.—The maximum penalty provided for in Section
72 Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs.—A person apprehended or
12 of this Act shall be imposed upon any person, who shall possess or have
arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a
under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6)
paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering,
months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject
injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body,
to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any
during parties, social gatherings or meetings, or in the proximate
dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of
company of at least two (2) persons.
imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
74 Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and
years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs.—The penalty of imprisonment
not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine
possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos
Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by
apply. law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for
825 smoking, consuming,
826
VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 825
People vs. Martinez
People vs. Martinez
in the form of residue, being subsumed under the last
paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not incorrect, it would be
more in keeping with the intent of the law to file charges sion of Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus
under Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first time and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) shall be
offenders of drug use, provided that there is a positive imposed on any person who shall possess any equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for receipt of this decision the action he has taken. Copies shall
dangerous drugs. Under Sec. 12, the maximum penalty is also be furnished the Director-General, Philippine National
imprisonment of four years and a fine of P50,000.00. In Police, and the Director-General, Philippine Drugs
fact, under the same section, the possession of such Enforcement Agency, for their information and guidance.
equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia is prima facie The Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City, is
evidence that the possessor has used a dangerous drug and directed to turn over the seized items to the Dangerous
shall be presumed to have violated Sec. 15. Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to SO ORDERED.
rehabilitate drug users, this Court thus calls on law
enforcers and prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases to Carpio (Chairperson), Nachura, Peralta and Abad, JJ.,
exercise proper discretion in filing charges when the concur.
presence of dangerous drugs is only and solely in the form
of residue and the confirmatory test required under Sec. 15 Judgment reversed and set aside, accused acquitted and
is positive for use of dangerous drugs. In such cases, to ordered released immediately.
afford the accused a chance to be rehabilitated, the filing of
Note.—As the failure to comply with the aforesaid
charges for or involving possession of dangerous drugs
requirements of the law compromised the identity of the
should only be done when another separate quantity of
items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the
dangerous drugs, other than mere residue, is found in the
crimes charged against appellant, his acquittal is in order.
possession of the accused as provided for in Sec. 15.
(Bondad, Jr. vs. People, 573 SCRA 497 [2008])
WHEREFORE, the August 7, 2009 Decision of the Court
——o0o——
of Appeals in CA-G.R. HC-NO. 03269 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and another judgment entered ACQUITTING
the accused and ordering their immediate release from
detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful
cause.
_______________ © Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug

into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and
various professionals who are required to carry such equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their
profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing
guidelines thereof.
The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other

paraphernalia fit or intended for any of the purposes enumerated in the
preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has
smoked, consumed, administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or
used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15
of this Act.
827
VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 827

People vs. Martinez
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Director of

the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate
implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections
is directed to report to this Court within five days from

People v. Martinez

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Martinez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Martinez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/25/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637 3/25/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

People vs. Martinez

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/36

People vs. Martinez 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

nothing prevents the apprehending officer from immediately

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/36

methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused were _______________

The Ruling of the CA

I Technicalities should never be used to defeat substantive

381 SCRA 314, 321 (2002).

A: Yes, sir. A: Yes, sir.14

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/36

806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 807

People vs. Martinez

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/36

19 Supra note 13.

_______________ If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should

812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

_______________ VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 815

29 G.R. No. 188900, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 433.

814 The letter-request and above-mentioned items were

time of seizure to the time of presentation in court. A SPECIMENS SUBMITTED:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/36

818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/36

_______________ limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or “ecstasy”,

_______________ confirmatory test result as required under Sec. 15. The

administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug

The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 827

Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Director of

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017869043c62011f4712003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/36

You might also like