Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Seventh Judicial Region
Branch xx, XXX City
email address: [email protected]
Tel. No. (032) 401-xxx; Mobile No. 0932-xxxxxx

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

Crim. Case No. R-CEB-18-06188-CR

- versus - For: VIOLATION OF SECTION 5,
ARTICLE II OF R.A. No. 9165

CHARISMA OCABA SANTITAS

a.k.a. “CHA-CHA”,
Accused.
x x

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

Crim. Case No. R-CEB-18-06189-CR

- versus - For: VIOLATION OF SECTION 11,
ARTICLE II OF R.A. No. 9165

CHARISMA OCABA SANTITAS

a.k.a. “CHA-CHA”,
Accused.
x x

ORDER

After the prosecution rested its case, on motion of the counsel for the
accused, the defense was granted leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence.1

Pls. see Order dated 28 November 2022.

1

-1-
 On 28 November 2022, the court electronically received the Demurrer
to Evidence of accused Charisma Ocaba Santitas a.k.a. “Cha-Cha” (Charisma)
in these cases, copy furnished the public prosecutor.

On the other hand, the prosecution did not file a comment to the
demurrer to evidence of Charisma.

A demurrer to evidence is “an objection by one of the parties in an

action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain
the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole
evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the
evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is
competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a
verdict of guilt. x x x Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer
thereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify
the judicial or official action demanded according to the circumstances. To be
considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the commission of
the crime, and (b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused.” 2 
Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court must evaluate whether the
prosecution evidence is sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.3

In criminal cases, the grant of the demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal

and the dismissal order may not be appealed because this would place the
accused in double jeopardy.4

In brief, the evidence presented by the prosecution in these cases shows

that in the evening of 17 August 2018, PCINSP Jackyll Bilibili (PCINSP
Bilibili) instructed PCPL Ma. Fatima English (PCPL English) and PO1 Chico
Dela Cruz (PO1 Dela Cruz) to verify and validate the report of a confidential
informant (CI) that Charisma is allegedly engaged in selling illegal drugs at
Sitio Flores St. Brgy. Pasil, XXX City.

The report having been validated, a buy bust operation was hatched.
During the briefing, PCPL English was tasked to act as the poseur buyer and
was provided with one (1) piece One Thousand Peso (₱1,000.00) bill to be
utilized as buy bust money.

After coordinating the intended operation with the PDEA, the buy-bust
team proceeded to the target area. There, PCPL English saw Charisma sitting
2
Pls. see Gutib v. Court of Appeals, 371 Phil. 293, 300, 305 (1999).
3
Pls. see Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, G.R. No. 189754, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 521, 538.
4
Pls. see People v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), G.R. No. 174504, March 21, 2011, citing Dayap v.
Sendiong, G.R. No. 177960, January 29, 2009, 577 SCRA 134, 147 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: March 27, 2015

-2-
outside her house. PCPL English, together with the CI, approached Charisma.
The CI informed Charisma that PCPL English was intending to buy shabu
worth ₱1,000.00. After taking the money, Charisma drew out a small box
from her pocket, took two (2) pieces of small size transparent plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance believed to be shabu and handed the
same to PCPL English. The transaction having been consummated, PCPL
English gave the pre-arranged signal, the reversal of her hat. As a result, the
immediate backup pounced into the place of the transaction. PCPL English
arrested Charisma. PCPL English seized from Charisma’s left hand the small
pill box which contains twenty-seven (27) pieces medium size heat-sealed
transparent plastic pack, each of which containing ten (10) pieces small size
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, and another small pill box which fell on
the ground containing eleven (11) pieces small size heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, believed to be shabu.

As standard operating procedure, PCPL English conducted a body

search. PCPL English asked Charisma to empty her pocket and ₱5,000.00, in
different denomination, believed to be proceeds of illegal drug trade, were
seized from the accused.

The qualitative examination conducted on the contents of two (2)

sachets that were the subject of the sale as well as the contents of the two
hundred eighty-one (281) sachets that were recovered from Charisma during
the search, all yielded positive results to the tests for the presence of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, per Chemistry Report
PDEA-DD018-3750 [Exh. L].

In her demurrer to evidence, Charisma challenged the validity of the buy

bust operation, and the compliance by the apprehending team with the
provision of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

After a thorough evaluation of the pieces of evidence presented by the

prosecution in these cases, the court finds that Section 21, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 was not complied with.

Section 21 plainly requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical

inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the same immediately
after seizure and confiscation.5 In addition, the inventory and photographing
must be done in the presence of the accused, his counsel, or representative, a
representative of the DOJ, the media, and an elected public official, who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 6
The phrase “immediately after seizure and confiscation” means that the
5
Pls. see People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: August 16, 2018].
6
Id.

-3-
physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the
law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension.7 And
only if this is not practicable, the IRR as amended, allows that the inventory
and photographing could be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the
nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team.8

With the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 10640,9 Section 21 of R.A.

No. 9165 now only requires two (2) witnesses to be present during the conduct
of the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items, namely:
(a) an elected public official; and (b) either a representative from the National
Prosecution Service or the media.10 Thusly, the witness to the inventory must
either be: i) an elected public official and a representative from the DOJ; or ii)
an elected public official and a representative from the media. Although the
amendatory law provides as an alternative the presence of the representative
from the DOJ and the representative from the media, 11 presence of an elected
public official remains indispensable.

In these cases, while PCPL English testified that she marked and
conducted the physical inventory of the pieces of seized items at the crime
scene, in the presence of an elected public official (Barangay Captain Julius
Guioguio) and representative from the media (Benjie Talisic [Benjie]), the
court however doubts whether the latter was indeed present during the marking
and inventory. The photographs (Exhs. “I” to “I-3”) taken during the conduct
of the physical inventory at the place of arrest shows the elected public official
solely signing the certificate of inventory. There is nothing in these pictures
which would show PCPL English conducting the inventory in the presence of
Benjie, which observation was confirmed by PCPL English when she reasoned
that there was no picture of Benjie during that time because the latter does not
want to take pictures.12

True that the Certificate of Inventory [Exh. “H”] shows the purported
signatures of Barangay Captain Julius Guioguio and Benjie Talisic. However,
the court could not discount the probability that this document could be signed
by Benjie any time after the conduct of the marking and inventory of the seized
items and not necessarily during the actual conduct thereof. Neither was Benjie
presented in court to confirm his presence during the said event and to
corroborate the statement of PCPL English. Hence, whether a media
representative was actually present during the marking and inventory of the
seized evidence is highly contentious.

7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Approved on 15 July 2014.
10
Pls. see People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created:
August 22, 2018].
11
People v. Cornel, G.R. No. 229047, April 16, 2018.
12
TSN, 28 November 2022, at 15.

-4-
 Thus, inasmuch as Exhs. “L” to “L-3” do not depict the presence of the
media representative during the actual conduct of the marking and inventory of
the seized items, the court could not make a categorical finding that indeed the
media representative was present during the marking and inventory of the
seized items. Accordingly, the court entertains a serious doubt whether the
marking of the seized items and the conduct of the physical inventory thereof
were indeed conducted in the presence of the media representative.

Moreover, the court finds that the chain of custody of the seized items
was not fully established.

Generally, there are four links that must be established to comply with
the chain of custody rule, to wit: “first, the seizure and making, 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.13 The prosecution has the burden to show “every link in
the chain, from the moment the dangerous drug was seized from the accused
until the time it is offered in court as evidence.” 14 People vs. Hementiza15
stressed that every person who touched the item must describe his or her
receipt thereof, what transpired while the same was in his or her possession,
and its condition when delivered to the next link.

Here, the fourth links were not proven.

Records provide that the testimony of the forensic chemist (Reina Jean
A. Asidllo) [Asdillo]) was dispensed with by the parties due to stipulation of
facts.16

The case of People vs. Ubungen,17 citing the earlier case of People vs.
Pajarin,18 ruled that in case of stipulation by the parties to dispense with the
attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that
the forensic chemist would have testified that he took the precautionary steps
required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
item, thus: (1) the forensic chemist received and seized article as marked,
properly sealed, and intact; (2) he resealed it after examination of the content;
13
Pls. see People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 229099, February 27, 2019 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: March 20, 2019].
14
People v. Manabat, et al., G.R. No. 230615, March 04, 2019, citing People v. Bartolini, 791 Phil. 626, 634
(2016) [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: April 12, 2019].
15
G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017.
16
Pls. see Order, dated 3 March 2022.
17
G.R. No. 225497, July 23, 2018 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: September 25, 2018].
18
654 Phil. 461 (2011).

-5-
and (3) he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be
tampered pending trial.

Here, the stipulation of facts by the parties do not contain the above-
mentioned vital information.19 Although they stipulated that Asdillo resealed
the seized items after examination and made her own personal markings on the
evidence that he examined, it was not stated that he “received the seized article
as marked, properly sealed, and intact.” Hence, the fourth link was not
established.

In view of the broken linkages in the chain of custody, serious

uncertainty is generated on the identity of the packs of shabu; thus, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty accorded to the
apprehending officers by the trial court cannot arise.20 People vs. Kasan21
expressed that “(s)trict adherence to the chain of custody rule must be
observed;22 the precautionary measures employed in every transfer of the
seized drug item, proved to a moral certainty. The sheer ease of planting drug
evidence vis-à-vis the severity of the imposable penalties in drug cases
compels strict compliance with the chain of custody rule.”

Accordingly, with these lapses committed by the apprehending officers

in complying with the vital requirements of the law, the identity as well as the
evidentiary value of the seized items in these cases were blemished with flecks
of suspicion. Accordingly, it could no longer be determined with reasonable
certainty whether the two packs of shabu [Exh. B], which are the subjects of
sale, and the two hundred eighty-one (281) packs of shabu [Exh. C] that were
confiscated after the arrest of Charisma, are indeed the very same packs
containing dangerous drugs that were seized during the buy bust operation.
“When the courts are given reason to entertain reservations about the identity
of the illegal drug item alleged[ly] seized from the accused, the actual crime
charged is put into serious question. Courts have no alternative but to acquit
on the ground of reasonable doubt.”23

In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State bears not only the burden
of proving the elements of the crime, but also of proving the corpus delicti or
the body of the crime.24 In drugs cases, the dangerous drug itself is the corpus
delicti of the violation of the law.25 Further, in cases for Illegal Sale and/or
19
Pls. see Order, dated 3 March 2022.
20
Pls. see People v. Alboka, G.R. No. 212195, February 21, 2018, citing People vs. Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590,
27 March 2017 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: April 06, 2018].
21
G.R. No. 238334, July 03, 2019 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: November 21, 2019].
22
People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
23
Pls. see People v. Galon, G.R. No. 219086, March 19, 2018 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: June 07, 2018], citing People v. Miranda, Jr., G.R. No. 206880, June 29, 2016, 795 SCRA 227
24
Pls. see People vs. Musor, G.R. No. 231843, November 07, 2018 [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date
created: March 14, 2019].
25
Ibid., citing People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441, 450-451 (2013).

-6-
Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under R.A. 9165, it is essential that the
identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering
that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the
crime.26 Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence
for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal.27

It is well-settled that the procedure in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is a

matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple
procedural technicality.28 Non-compliance with the chain of custody rule
under the procedure set forth by law is a sufficient ground for the acquittal of
the accused.

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, for insufficiency of the

evidence of the prosecution in these cases, the Demurrer to Evidence of the
accused is hereby GRANTED.

Accordingly, these cases are hereby ordered DISMISSED and accused

Charisma Ocaba Santitas a.k.a. “Cha-Cha” is hereby ACQUITTED from
criminal liability for Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No.
9165.

The dangerous drugs described in Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DD018-

3750 are hereby declared FORFEITED and CONFISCATED in favor of the
government and are hereby ordered DESTROYED pursuant to R.A. No. 9165.

Likewise, the total amount of Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) in

different denominations as proceeds of the illegal drug trade [Exh. F] of
Charisma Ocaba Santitas a.k.a. “Cha-Cha” are hereby declared
FORFEITED and CONFISCATED in favor of the government to be
DEPOSITED/REMITTED to the General Fund/Bureau of the Treasury per
OCA Circular No. 71-2017, dated 27 March 2017.

Within five (5) calendar days from receipt of this Order, PCPL Ma.
Fatima English is hereby directed to DEPOSIT the said amount of ₱5,000.00
with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, XXX City.

26
Pls. see People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, November 05, 2018; See also People v. Crispo, G.R. No.
230065, March 14, 2018; People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 231383, March 7, 2018; People v. Magsano, G.R. No.
231050, February 28, 2018; People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018; People v. Miranda,
G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018; and People v. Mamangon, G. R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018. See also
People vs. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014). [Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: March 21,
2019].
27
See People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1039-
1040 (2012).
28
Pls. see People v. Hementiza, G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017 citing People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794, 808
(2011)

-7-
She is also directed to submit to court proof of her compliance with this
directive, within a period of five (5) calendar days therefrom.

On the other hand, the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court, XXX City, is hereby directed to comply with OCA Circular No. 71-
2017 regarding the remittance of this amount of ₱5,000.00 to the General
Fund/Bureau of the Treasury.

SO ORDERED.

Done in chambers this 11th day of January 2023 in XXX City,

Philippines.

MORY A. DOWRY
Presiding Judge

-8-