First Division

G.R. No. 192432

June 23, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.

LARRY MENDOZA y ESTRADA, Accused-Appellant.
BERSAMIN, J.
COMMENTS: (The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material if not indispensable
in every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. As such, the identity of the dangerous drugs
should be established beyond doubt by showing that the dangerous drugs offered in court were the same
substances bought during the buy-bust operation. This rigorous requirement, known under RA No. 9165 as
the chain of custody, performs the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of
the evidence are removed.)
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
The law enforcement agents who conduct buy-bust operations against persons suspected of drug trafficking
in violation of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA No. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, should comply with the statutory requirements for preserving the chain of custody of the
seized evidence. Failing this, they are required to render sufficient reasons for their non-compliance during
the trial; otherwise, the presumption that they have regularly performed their official duties cannot obtain,
and the persons they charge should be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Case
This appeal seeks the review and reversal of the decision promulgated on April 26, 2010 in CA-G.R. CRH.C. No. 03901 entitled People of the Philippines v. Larry Mendoza y Estrada, whereby the Court of Appeals
(CA) affirmed the judgment rendered on February 24, 2009 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 67, in
Binangonan, Rizal finding accused Larry Mendoza y Estrada guilty of a violation of Section 5 and a violation
of Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165.
Antecedents
The accusatory portion of the information charging the violation of Section 5 of RA No. 9165 reads:
That on or about the 28th day of August 2007, in the Municipality of Binangonan, Province of Rizal,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having
been authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to a
poseur buyer (PO1 Arnel D. Diocena), 0.03 gram and 0.01 gram or a total weight of 0.04 gram of white
crystalline substance contained in two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, which substance was
found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride alsoknown as "shabu", a dangerous drug, in
consideration of the amountof Php 500.00, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The accusatory portion of the information charging the violation of Section 11 of RA No. 9165 alleges:
That, on or about the 28th day of August 2007, in the Municipality of Binangonan, Province of Rizal,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully
authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess
and have in his custody and control 0.01 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-

sealed transparent plastic sachet, which substance was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine
hydrochloride also known as "shabu", a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
After the accused pleaded not guiltyto both informations, the State presented Sr. Insp. Vivian C. Sumobay,
PO1 Arnel D. Diocena and Insp. Alfredo DG Lim as its witnesses, while the witnesses for the Defense were
the accused himself, Lolita Flores and Analiza Acapin.
The CA summarized the respective versions of the parties in the decision under review as follows:
Evidence for the Prosecution
As culled from the herein assailed Decision, the prosecution presented the following witnesses:
"x x x Policemen Arnel Diocenaand Alfredo DG Limtestified that, on September 29, 2007, they received
reports that an alias Larry was selling shabuat St. Claire Street, Barangay Calumpang, Binangonan, Rizal.
They organized a buy-bust operationwhere Diocena acted as the poseur buyer while Lim servedas back-up.
They proceeded to the target area with their asset at around 10:45 p.m. There Diocena and the asset
waited in the corner on their motorcycle while Lim and the other cops positioned themselves in the
perimeter. The asset texted Larry and they waited for him to arrive. Later,Larry arrived and told them,
Pasensya na at ngayon lang dumating ang mga items. Larry then asked them how much they were buying
and Diocena told P500.00 worth. Larry took out two plastic sachets of shabuand gave it to Diocena who
gave him a marked P500 bill (exhibit D). Diocenalit the left signal light of his motorcycle to signal Lim and
the other cops that the deal was done. They then arrested Larry who turned out to be the accused. After
frisking him, they recovered another sachet of shabufrom him. Diocena marked the first two LEM-1and
LEM-2while the one taken after the frisk he marked LEM-3(TSN dated April 23 and July 17, 2008, exhibits
D, E and F). These were sent to the police crime lab for forensic testing where they tested positive for
0.03 (LEM-1), 0.01 (LEM-2) and 0.01 (LEM-3) grams for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu
respectively (TSN dated December 5, 2007, exhibits A,B and C). LEM-1 and LEM-2 were made the
basis of the pushing charge while LEM-3 the one for possession."
Evidence for the Defense
The defense witnesses version of facts, as summarized in the herein assailed Decision, is as follows:
"x x x On that day, he was minding his own business, eating with his wife when his friend Rolly Lopez
knocked on the door. Rolly was wanted by the cops (may atraso) and asked Mendoza for help to get them
off his back.Rolly texted somebody and after there was another knock. It was the police led by one Dennis
Gorospewho asked Mendoza for his identity. When he said yes, Gorospe cuffed him after showing him
sachets of shabuwith his initials. Gorospe was then taken to the police station where he was interrogated
and asked how much protection money he can cough up. When he refused, he was arrested and drug
tested. He claims that he was supposed to be a regaloto the new police chief. (TSN dated August 27,
October 9, November 26, 2008 and February 18, 2009)
Ruling of the RTC
On February 24, 2009, the RTC convicted the accused of the crimes charged, disposing:
We thus find accused Larry Mendoza GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of R.A. No.
9165 and sentence him to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and topay a fine of P500,000.00. We also
find him GUILTYbeyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 and illegally possessing
a total of 0.01 grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabuand accordingly sentence him to suffer

an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 13 years as maximum and to pay a fine
of P300,000.00
Let the drug samples in this case be forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for
proper disposition. Furnish PDEA with a copy of this Decision per OCA Circular No. 70-2007.
SO ORDERED.
Judgment of the CA
The accused appealed, contendingthat the identity of the corpus delictiand the fact of illegal sale had
notbeen established beyond reasonable doubt; that PO1 Diocenas testimony on the sale of the illegal
drugs and on the buy-bust operation had not been corroborated; that the Prosecution had patently failed to
show compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA No. 9165; and that such failure to show
compliance had negated the presumption of regularity accorded to the apprehending police officers, and
should warrant his acquittal.
On April 26, 2010, the CA affirmed the conviction of the accused, holding and ruling thusly:
x x x [I]t is worthy of mention that prosecution of cases for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act arising from
buy-bust operations largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted them. Unless
clear and convincing evidence is proffered showing that the members of the buy-bust team were driven by
any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve
full faith and credit.
Here, accused-appellant failed to present any plausible reason or ill-motive on the part of the police officers
to falsely impute to him such a serious and unfounded charge. We thus are obliged to accord great respect
to and treat with finality the findings of the trial court on the prosecution witnesses credibility. After all, it is
settled doctrine that the trial courts evaluation of the credibility of a testimony is accorded the highest
respect, for the trial court has the distinct opportunity of directly observing the demeanor of a witness and,
thus, to determine whether he is telling the truth.
Accused-appellants argument that the procedural requirements of Section 21, paragraph 1 of ArticleII of
Republic Act No. 9165 with respect to the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs were not complied
with is equally bereft of merit.
xxxx
Verily, failure of the police officers to strictly comply with the subject procedure isnot fatal [to] the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items having been properly preservedby the
apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accuseds arrest illegal or items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. For, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused.
xxxx
It thus behooves Us to believe that all the links in the chain from the moment it was seized from the
accused-appellant, marked in evidence and submitted to the crime laboratory, up to the time it was offered
in evidence were sufficiently establishedin this case.
We are thus constrained to uphold accused-appellants conviction.
xxxx

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated February 24, 2009 is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Issue
In this appeal, the accused presentsthe lone issue of whether the CA erred in finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the violations of Section 5 and Section 11 of RA No. 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
1.
The State did not satisfactorilyexplain substantial lapses
committed by the buy-bust team in the chain of custody;
hence, the guilt of the accused for the crime charged
was not established beyond reasonable doubt
The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material if not indispensable in every
prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. As such, the identityof the dangerous drugs should be
established beyond doubt by showing thatthe dangerous drugs offered in court were the same substances
boughtduring the buy-bust operation. This rigorous requirement, known under RA No. 9165 as the chain of
custody, performs the function of ensuring thatunnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence
are removed. As the Court has expounded in People v. Catalan, the dangerous drugs are themselves the
corpus delicti; hence:
To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the
Prosecution must prove the corpus delicti.That proof is vital to a judgment of conviction. On the other hand,
the Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165 when the dangerous drugs are missing but also when there are substantial gaps in
the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence
presented in court.
As the means of ensuring the establishment of the chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165 specifies
that:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The following guideline in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165 complements
Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165, to wit:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same inthe presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom suchitems were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative orcounsel, a

representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in
case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid suchseizures of and custody
over said items;
Based on the foregoing statutory rules, the manner and timing of the marking of the seized drugs or related
items are crucial in proving the chain of custody. Certainly, the marking after seizure by the arresting officer,
being the starting point in the custodial link, should be made immediately upon the seizure, or, if that is not
possible, as close to the time and place of the seizure as practicable under the obtaining circumstances.
This stricture is essential because the succeeding handlers of the contraband would use the markings as
their reference to the seizure. The marking further serves to separate the marked seized drugs fromall other
evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until the drugs are disposed of upon the termination of
the criminal proceedings. The deliberate taking of these identifying steps is statutorily aimed at obviating
switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence. Indeed, the preservation of the chain of custody vis-vis the contraband ensures the integrity of the evidence incriminating the accused, and relates to the
element of relevancy as one of the requisites for the admissibility of the evidence.
An examination of the records reveals that the buy-bust team did not observe the statutory procedures on
preserving the chain of custody.
To start with, the State did not show the presence during the seizure and confiscation of the contraband,
aswell as during the physical inventory and photographing of the contraband, ofthe representatives from the
media or the Department of Justice, or of any elected public official. Such presence was precisely
necessary to insulatethe apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or
irregularity.
It is notable that PO1 Diocena, although specifically recalling having marked the confiscated sachets of
shabuwith the initials of the accused immediately after the seizure, did not state, as the following excerpts
from his testimony indicate, if he had madehis marking in the presence of the accused himself or of his
representative, and in the presence of a representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any
elected public official, to wit:
Q - What did you do with the plasticsachets you bought or the plastic sachets handed to you and the other
plastic sachet Insp. Lim recovered from him?
A - I put markings, Maam.
Q - What markings did you place on the plastic sachets?
A - LEM-1, LEM-2 and LEM-3.
Q - And after marking those specimen, what did you do with them?
A - We brought them to the police station.
Q - What did the police station do with the plastic sachets?
A - Our investigator took pictures and brought them to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
xxxx

Q - You said that you put markings on the specimen at the target area?
A - Yes, Maam.
Q - You prepared the listing of all the specimen and marked money you recovered from the accused?
A - No, Maam.
Q - When you returned to the police station that was the only time that you took pictures of the marked
money?
A - Yes, Maam.
Q - To whom did you turn it over?
A - To our investigator, Maam.
Q - What is the name of your investigator?
A - PO1 Dennis Gorospe, Maam.
Similarly, P/Insp. Lim did not mention in his testimony, the relevant portions of which are quoted hereunder,
that a representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official was present
during the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, as follows:
Q - What did you do with the subject sale and the one you recovered from the accused?
A - I told PO1 Diocena to mark it, the three heat-sealed plastic sachets.
Q - Do you know the markings placed on the plastic sachets?
A - LEM-1, LEM-2 and LEM-3.
Q - And aside from marking the specimen, what did you do with them?
A - I apprised the suspect of his rights, then right after that we went to the headquarters.
Q - And after you brought the accused and the specimen to the headquarters, what did you do next with the
specimen?
A - We submitted them to the Crime Laboratory for verification.
Q - Who personally brought them to the Crime Laboratory?
A - If I am not mistaken it was also PO1 Diocena and the other men.
xxxx
Q - Where was Officer Diocena when heput markings on the three plastic sachets you recovered?
A - When I arrested the subject, he alighted from the motorcycle and he helped me in arresting the accused,
it was just then beneath the Meralco post.

Q - And the markings represent the initials of the accused?

A - I dont know, Maam, LEM, maybe, Maam.
Q - But it was Officer Diocena who put the markings?
A - Yes, Maam.
Q - Was there an inventory or list of the things you recovered from the accused?
A - Yes, Maam.
Q - Did you ask the accused to sign that inventory?
A - I was not able, Maam.
The consequences of the failure ofthe arresting lawmen to comply with the requirements of Section 21(1),
supra, were dire as far as the Prosecution was concerned. Without the insulating presence of the
representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure
and marking of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that
had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972)
again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the
sachets of shabu that were evidence herein of thecorpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the
trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would
have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.
Secondly, the records nowhere indicated, contrary to the claim of P/Insp. Lim, that the buy-bust team, orany
member thereof, had conducted the physical inventory of the confiscated items. We know this because the
States formal offer of evidence did not include such inventory, to wit:
PROSECUTOR ARAGONES:
Your Honor, we formally offer Exhibit "A", the Chemistry Report No. D-221-07; Exhibit "B", the request for
laboratory examination from the Binangonan Police Station; and Exhibit "C", the subject specimen. This is to
prove that after request made by the Binangonan Police Station, examined by the forensic chemical officer,
and after examination proved positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride. These exhibits are
offered as part of the testimony of the forensic chemist. Exhibit "D", the buy bust money, the P500.00 bill
used during the operation; Exhibit "D-1" is the marking placed by Police Officer Diocena. This is to prove
that this is the xerox copy of the original buy bust money used during the buy bust operation conducted
against the accused. Exhibit "E" is the sworn statement of Police Officer Diocena. This is to prove all the
facts alleged in the information and as part of the testimony of the said police officer. Exhibit "F" is the sworn
statement of P/Insp. Alfredo Lim to prove all the facts alleged in the information and as part of the testimony
of said witness. That would be all for our formal offer of evidence. Without the inventory having beenmade
by the seizing lawmen, it became doubtful whether any shabu had been seized from the accused at all.
And, thirdly, although PO1 Diocena asserted that photographs of the confiscated items and the marked
money were taken at the police station, it still behooved him to justify why the photographs of the seized
shabuwas not taken immediately upon the seizure,and at the place of seizure. The State did not explain this
lapse. The pictorial evidence of the latter kind would have more firmly established the identity of the
seizedshabufor purposes of preserving the chain of custody.
The last paragraph of Section 21(1) of the IRR of RA No. 9165 expressly provides a saving mechanism
tothe effect that not every case of non-compliance with the statutory requirements for the physical inventory
and photograph of the dangerous drugs being made "in the presence of the accused or the person/s from

whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof" would prejudice the States case against the
accused. But in order for that saving mechanism to apply, and thus save the day for the States cause, the
Prosecution must have to recognize first the lapse or lapses, and then credibly explain them.
It appears that the application ofthe saving mechanism in this case was not warranted. The Prosecution did
notconcede that the lawmen had not complied with the requirement for "the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof." Also, the Prosecution did
not tender any justification why no representatives from the media or the Department of Justice, or any
elected public official had been present during the seizure and confiscation of the shabu. The omissions,
particularly the failure to justify on the part of the lawmen, were strange and improbable, particularly
because the records indicated that the lawmen had sufficient time and the opportunity to prepare for the
proper conductof the buy-bust operation against the accused due to such operation having come in the
aftermath of a successful test buy.
Anent the test buy, PO1 Diocena mentioned the same in his sinumpaang salaysay, thusly:
x x x Na itong sinasabi ng aming asset na alyas "Larry" ay matagal na naming minamanmanan at sa
katunayan ay nagsagawa na kami ng Test Buy noong Hulyo 10, 2007 at kami ay nakabili sa kanya ng isang
pirasong maliit na plastic na may lamang shabu at amin itong ipinasuri sa RIZAL PNP Crime Laboratory
Office na nagbigay ng positibong resulta sa pinagbabawal na droga at siya ay di namin kaagad nahuli
sapagkat siya ay huminto pansamantala sa pagbebenta ng iligal na droga. x x x
Similarly, P/Insp. Lim adverted to the test buy in his own sinumpaang salaysayas follows:
x x x Sapagkat ako ay bago lamang dito sa himpilan ng Binangonan, napagalaman ko mula saaking mga
kasamahan na itong sinasabi ng aming asset na alyas "Larry" ay matagal na nilang minamanmanan at sa
katunayan aynagsagawa ng Test Buy noong Hulyo 10, 2007 laban dito kay alyas "Larry" at ang nabiling
pinaghihinalaang shabu ay ipinasuri sa RIZAL PNP Crime Laboratory Office na nagbigay ng positibong
resulta sa pinagbabawal na droga na kaya lamang hindi nahuhuli itong si alyas "Larry" sa dahilang siya at
huminto pansamantala sa pagbebenta ng iligal na droga.
P/Insp. Lim reiterated his story on direct examination, viz:
Q - And what report, if any, was madeby that asset aside from there was an ongoing sale of drugs in
Calumpang?
A - That there was an ongoing sale byalias Larry na matagal na nilang minamatyagan, in fact they
havealready testbuy noong mga nakaraang taon, eh, wala pa ho ako noon.
In all, the buy-bust team had about 48 days the period intervening between July 10, 2007, when the test
buy was conducted, and August 28, 2007, when the crimes charged were committed within which to have
the media and the Department of Justice be represented during the buy-bust operation, as well as to invite
an elected public official of the place of operation to witness the operation. It puzzles the Court, therefore,
that the buy-bust team did not prudently follow the procedures outlined in Section 21(1), supra, despite their
being experienced policemen who knew the significance of the procedures in the preservation of the chain
of custody.
With the chain of custody being demonstrably broken, the accused deserved to be acquitted of the
seriouscharges. Even if we rejected the frame-up defense of the accused, the unexplained failures and

lapses committed by the buy-bust team could not be fairly ignored. At the very least, they raised a
reasonable doubt on his guilt. "A reasonable doubt of guilt," according toUnited States v. Youthsey:
x x x is a doubt growing reasonably out of evidence or the lack of it. It is not a captious doubt; not a doubt
engendered merely by sympathy for the unfortunate position of the defendant, or a dislike to accept the
responsibility of convicting a fellowman. If, having weighed the evidence on both sides, you reach the
conclusion that the defendant is guilty, to that degree of certainty as would lead you toact on the faith of it in
the most important and crucial affairs of your life, you may properly convict him. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt is notproof to a mathematical demonstration. It is not proof beyond the possibility of mistake.
Thus, the accused was entitled to beacquitted and freed, for, as we pointed out in People v. Belocura:
x x x in all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the burden to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging this burden, the Prosecutions duty is to prove each and every
element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other
crime necessarily included therein. The Prosecution must further prove the participation of the accused in
the commission of the offense. In doing all these, the Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own
evidence, and not anchor its success upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused. The burden of
proof placed on the Prosecution arises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that no
less thanthe Constitution has guaranteed. Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of
proof, that he must then be acquitted and set free should the Prosecution not overcome the presumption of
innocence in his favor. In other words, the weakness of the defense put up bythe accused is
inconsequential in the proceedings for as long as the Prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof in
establishing the commission of the crime charged and in identifying the accused as the malefactor
responsible for it.
2.
The CA and the RTC erred in relying
on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duty of the arresting officers
Even if the foregoing conclusion already renders any further discussion of the applicability of the
presumption of regularity in favor of the members of the buy-bust team superfluous, we need to dwell a bit
on the matter if only to remind the lower courtsnot to give too much primacy to the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duty at the expense of the higher and stronger presumption of innocence in
favor of the accused in a prosecution for violation of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002.
We have usually presumed the regularity of performance of their official duties in favor of the members of
buy-bust teams enforcing our laws against the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Such presumption is based
on three fundamental reasons, namely: first, innocence, and not wrong-doing, is to be presumed; second,
an official oath will not be violated; and, third, a republican form of government cannot survive long unless a
limit is placed upon controversies and certain trust and confidence reposed in each governmental
department or agent by every other such department or agent, at least to the extent of such
presumption. But the presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence of irregularity or of any failure to
perform a duty. Judicial reliance on the presumption despite any hint of irregularity in the procedures
undertaken by the agents of the law will thus be fundamentally unsound because such hint is itself
affirmative proof of irregularity.
The presumption of regularity of performance of official duty stands only when no reason exists in the
records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance the
presumption of regularity will not be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent.
Trial courts are instructed to apply this differentiation, and to always bear in mind the following reminder
issued in People v. Catalan:
x x x We remind the lower courts that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not
prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence favoring the accused. Otherwise, the constitutional
guarantee of the accused being presumed innocent would be held sut ordinate to a mere rule of evidence
allocating the burden of evidence. Where, like here, the proof adduced against the accused has not even
overcome the presumption of innocence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not
be a factor to adjudge the accused guilty of the crime charged.
Moreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the
policemen because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. As a rule, a presumed fact
like the regularity of performance by a police officer must be inferred only from an established basic fact, not
plucked out from thin air. To say it differently, it is the established basic fact that triggers the presumed fact
of regular performance. Where there is any hint of irregularity committed by the police officers in arresting
the accused and thereafter, several of which we have earlier noted, there can be no presumption of
regularity of performance in their favor.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on April 26, 2010 by the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03901 entitled People of the Philippines v. Larry Mendoza y
Estrada; ACQUITS LARRY MENDOZA y ESTRADA on the ground of reasonable doubt; and ORDERS his
immediate release from detention at the National Penitentiary, unless there are other lawful causes
warranting his continued detention.
The Director of Bureau of Corrections is directed to forthwith implement this decision and to report to this
Court his action hereon within ten (10) days from receipt.
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

G.R No. 181441

November 14, 2008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
LARRY LOPEZ, appellant.
CARPIO, J.:
COMMENTS: (Inconsistencies on the existence of a pre-arranged signal and the markings on the buy-bust
money pertain to peripheral matters and do not refer to the actual buy-bust operation itself - that crucial
moment when the appellant was caught selling shabu - which might warrant a reversal of appellant's
conviction. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid
means of arresting drug offenders. Considering the legality of appellant's warrantless arrest, the subsequent
warrantless search resulting in the recovery of marijuana found in appellant's body is also valid.)
The Case
This is an appeal from the 25 September 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
02031. The Court of Appeals affirmed the 21 December 2005 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 96, Baler, Aurora, in Criminal Case Nos. 3188 and 3189 finding appellant Larry Lopez guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
The prosecution charged appellant with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 in two Informations which
read:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3188
That on or about 11:05 o'clock in the morning of November 1, 2003 in Baler, Aurora and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, unlawfully, feloniously and
willfully sell and convey unto a poseur buyer one plastic sachet containing 0.06 gram of shabu, a
prohibited drug, for three (3) P100.00 and one (1) P200.00 marked bills without any license or permit
from the authorities.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3189
That on or about 11:00 o'clock in the morning of November 1, 2003 in Baler, Aurora and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, unlawfully, feloniously and
willfully have in his possession and control three (3) pieces of marlboro cigarettes packs, containing
6.20 grams of marijuana leaves and fruiting tops without any permit or license from the authorities.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution established that on 1 November 2003, at around 10:00 a.m., a certain barangay official
went to the Baler Police Station reporting the peddling of illegal drugs by appellant. A buy-bust operation
was planned where PO1 Romeo Miranda (PO1 Miranda) was assigned as poseur-buyer. PO1 Miranda
accompanied a confidential agent in going to the residence of appellant to buy P500 worth of shabu.
Appellant told them that he would deliver the shabu in front of Ditha's Hardware in half an hour. The

members of the buy-bust team strategically stationed themselves near the place of the transaction. At
around 11:05 a.m., the appellant, driving his tricycle, arrived and the confidential agent waved at him to
stop. PO1 Miranda and the confidential agent approached appellant, they talked for a moment, and the
exchange took place. The agent handed the marked money to appellant, who simultaneously handed the
sachet of shabu. Immediately thereafter, the agent handed the shabu to PO1 Miranda who then held the
appellant. The other members of the buy-bust team rushed to the crime scene and arrested appellant. After
apprising appellant of the Miranda Rights, PO1 Sonny Guzman (PO1 Guzman) searched appellant's body
which yielded dried marijuana leaves wrapped in two Marlboro cigarette packs and one cigarette foil.
Appellant, on the other hand, denied the charges and insisted that he was framed-up. Appellant claimed
that at around 11:05 in the morning of 1 November 2003, he was driving his tricycle to bring his passengers,
namely Teresita Fernando and Raymund Putol, to the cemetery. Upon reaching Ditha's Hardware, two men
in civilian clothes blocked their way and identified themselves as policemen. Thereafter, appellant was
suddenly and forcibly pulled down from the tricycle and handcuffed. After the policemen frisked appellant,
they exclaimed "Positive" showing a sachet. Then, he was arrested and brought to the police station where
he was interrogated and searched again.
The dispositive portion of the 21 December 2005 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96,
Baler, Aurora, reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows:
1. Finding Larry Lopez y Parinia GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.A. 9165 for the sale of 0.06 gram of shabu and hereby sentences him to suffer
the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00);
2. Finding Larry Lopez y Parinia GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11,
Article II of R.A. 9165 for possession of 6.20 grams of dried marijuana leaves and hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Fourteen (14) years and a fine of
Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The confiscated shabu and dried marijuana leaves are hereby ordered to be turned over to the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Aurora, which, in turn, shall coordinate with the proper
government agency for the proper disposition and destruction of the same.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal, appellant pointed out that there were inconsistencies on the following matters: (1) existence of a
pre-arranged signal; and the (2) recollection by PO1 Miranda of the markings on the buy-bust money.
Appellant also argued that the subsequent warrantless search and seizure was illegal because he was
never caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu. Hence, the marijuana recovered from him was inadmissible.
The Court of Appeals' Ruling
In a Decision dated 25 September 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision finding
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. The appellate court found that PO1
Miranda satisfactorily explained his answer to the question regarding the pre-arranged signal. The appellate
court also ruled that failure to recall the markings on the buy-bust money was probably due to the length of
time between the date of the incident and the date of PO1 Miranda's testimony. At any rate, the markings on
the marked money are immaterial because the presentation of the marked money is not even necessary for
the successful prosecution of the offenses charged. The Court of Appeals also rejected appellant's claim of
frame-up considering that there was no evidence of any ulterior motive for the police officers to falsely
charge appellant of the offenses. It appears that the frame-up theory was a mere afterthought.

On the warrantless search and seizure, the Court of Appeals held that it is valid having been made after a
lawful warrantless arrest, citing Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.
Hence, this appeal.
The Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of (1) Section
5, Article II of RA 9165 for the sale of 0.06 gram of shabu; and (2) Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for the
possession of 6.20 grams of dried marijuana leaves.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 read:
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten
million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law,
shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous
drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from
Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if
the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine
or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu", or other 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 quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less
than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
The Court sustains the finding of the lower courts that the prosecution sufficiently established appellant's
guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution
proved that a consummated sale of shabu transpired between the buy-bust team which included the
confidential agent, on one hand, and the appellant on the other. PO1 Rafael Duaso, PO1 Guzman, and PO1
Miranda, who were members of the buy-bust team, testified that appellant soldshabu to the confidential
agent, who simultaneously gave the marked money to appellant. The prosecution also established that the
police officers recovered marijuana after searching appellant's body. The subject drugs were also proven to
be methylamphetamine hydrochloride and marijuana, as evidenced by Field Test Report No. APPO-SOG1101-2003-01 and the confirmatory tests subsequently conducted by Forensic Chemical Officer, P/Insp.
Divina Dizon of the Nueva Ecija Crime Laboratory, as evidenced by her Chemistry Report No. D-298-2003.

Generally, the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and
binding on this Court. In the present case, appellant gravely failed to show that the trial court overlooked or
misapprehended any fact or circumstance of weight and substance to warrant a deviation from this rule.
First, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of PO1 Miranda refer to trivial or minor matters, which do
not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole or reflect on the witness'
honesty. Inconsistencies on the existence of a pre-arranged signal and the markings on the buy-bust money
pertain to peripheral matters and do not refer to the actual buy-bust operation itself - that crucial moment
when the appellant was caught selling shabu - which might warrant a reversal of appellant's
conviction. Further, the Court sustains the trial court in giving credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution's witnesses because the trial court is in a better position to evaluate the witnesses' deportment
during the trial. Besides, the employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a
buy-bust operation. Also, the non-presentation of the buy-bust money is not fatal to the successful
prosecution of a drug case.
Second, appellant did not substantiate his defense of frame-up. He did not present evidence that the
prosecution witnesses had motive to falsely charge him. Neither did appellant prove that the police officers
did not perform their duties regularly. As the Court of Appeals held, the frame-up theory was a mere
afterthought.
Third, Section 12 of Rule 126 expressly provides that "[a] person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a
search warrant." In this case, the arresting officers were justified in arresting appellant as he had just
committed a crime when he sold shabu to the confidential agent. A buy-bust operation is a form of
entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting drug offenders.
Considering the legality of appellant's warrantless arrest, the subsequent warrantless search resulting in the
recovery of marijuana found in appellant's body is also valid.
Considering that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165,
the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial court's imposition of life imprisonment and a fine
of P500,000 in Criminal Case No. 3188 for the illegal sale of shabu.
While appellant is also guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the
Court modifies the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 3189 for illegal possession of marijuana.
In People v. Mateo, the Court held that the period of imprisonment imposed on the accused should not be a
straight penalty, but should be an indeterminate penalty. Thus, the trial court erred in imposing the straight
penalty of imprisonment of fourteen (14) years.
Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence provides that when the offense is punished by a law other than the
Revised Penal Code, "the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum
term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the
minimum term prescribed by the same." Accordingly, the penalty that should be imposed on appellant is
imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as
maximum. The Court affirms the P300,000 fine imposed by the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the 25 September 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 02031 with the MODIFICATION that the penalty in Criminal Case No. 3189 shall be
imprisonment for twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum, and a
fine of P300,000.
SO ORDERED.
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 188328

August 25, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
JOSELITO NASARA y DAHAY, Appellant.
CARPIO MORALES, J.
COMMENTS: (The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources or
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and or surrendered, for proper disposition. Given the
purpose of conducting a laboratory examination of the suspicious items seized to determine if indeed they
contain, in this case, shabu, a more strict standard is imposed by law to ascertain that they are the
sameitems seized or are not substituted or adulterated.)
DECISION
Joselito "Jojo" Nasara (appellant) was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch
103 for violation of Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165, (R.A. No. 9165) or the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.
The accusatory portion of the Information against appellant, together with "another person," reads:
That on or about the 16th day of March 2004 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused conspiring and
confederating with another person whose thru (sic) name, identity and whereabouts has not as yet
ascertained and mutually helping each other not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport
or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, wilfully (sic), and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver,
transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, zero point zero three (0.03) grams of white
crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (underscoring supplied)
From the evidence for the prosecution, the following version is culled:
In the morning of March 16, 2004, a confidential informant reported at Police Station 6, Batasan Hills,
Quezon City the selling of illegal drugs along San Miguel Street, Payatas, Quezon City.
On the instruction of P/Supt. Raymond Esquivel, SPO2 Rodelio Dionco, PO2 Rolando Lopez (PO2 Lopez),
SPO4 Constancio Pitaga and SPO4 Reynaldo Angeles conducted a buy-bust operation in the area. SPO2
Dionco, who was designated as poseur-buyer, was given two 100 peso bills and instructed to scratch his
head to signal the consummation of the sale.
Upon arriving at San Miguel Street at 10:30 A.M., also on March 16, 2004, SPO2 Dionco and the informant
approached appellant who was standing, together with a certain Kune, outside a small store. The informant
thereupon introduced to Kune and appellant SPO2 Dionco as a prospective buyer. As appellant asked how
much was being bought, SPO2 Dionco handed the two bills to appellant who, together with Kune, went
inside a house adjacent to the store. When the two returned, Kune handed a small plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substances to SPO2 Dionco who, after examining it, scratched his head.
As the back-up police officers were closing in, SPO2 Dionco introduced himself as a police officer to
appellant andKune who shoved him and both ran away. The rest of the team gave a chase and caught
appellant but not Kune.
The police officers recovered the money from the right pocket of appellants short pants. On inspection of
the house, SPO2 Dionco found on top of a television set two plastic sachets containing substances similar

to those inside the sachet handed to him by Kune. These two sachets were marked by PO2 Lopez with his
initials "RL".
The buy-bust team thereafter brought appellant to the police station, together with the seized items which
were turned over to the Desk Officer. A memorandum was then prepared by P/Insp. Abelardo Aquino,
addressed to the Chief of the Central Police District, Physical Science Division, requesting for the conduct
of laboratory examination on the seized items to determine the presence of dangerous drugs and their
weight, which memorandum was delivered by PO2 Lopez and received at 7:00 p.m. of March 16, 2004 by
"Nard" Jabonillo.
Upon receipt of the sachets, Engr. Leonard Jabonillo, Forensic Analyst of the Central Police District Crime
Laboratory Office, conducted a laboratory examination thereof and recorded his findings in Chemistry
Report No. D-292-2004 that each of the three heat-sealed plastic sachets contained 0.03 grams and was
positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellant, denying the accusation, claimed that he was framed-up. His version goes: On March 16, 2004,
while he was resting inside the house of one Nelson Balawis in San Miguel, he heard
some kalabugan which prompted him to go outside where he saw three armed men, one of whom pointed a
gun at him. When he asked why, the man shouted to his companions "Damputin yan!," and he was in fact
apprehended and brought to a waiting vehicle.
Inside the vehicle were two men who were also accosted and who informed him that the police officers
acquired from them 2.5 grams of shabu, P11,000.00 in cash, and a cellular phone.
Finding for the prosecution, the trial court convicted appellant, disposing as follows:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused JOSELITO "JOJO" MASARA (sic) Y
DAHAY, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of RA 9165 (for drug pushing) as charged
and he is hereby sentenced to a jail term of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The shabu involved in this case in three (3) small plastic sachets of 0.03 gram each are ordered transmitted
to PDEA thru DDB for proper care and disposition as per RA 9165.
SO ORDERED. (emphasis in the original)
Ruling out appellants defense of frame-up, the trial court observed, quoted verbatim:
Jojo testified that he saw two arrested persons inside the FX van where he was also boarded and who told
him that the police got from them 2.5 grams of shabu, P11,000.00 cash and a cellphone. If this were so,
then those policemen already have (sic) enough sequestered merchandise to bother going after Jojo who,
based on his claim, had just gotten out of his
room, jobless as a construction crewman for three months, penniless, and who must have clearly appeared
to those three (3) armed men mentioned by the defense as a person, from whom they could get nothing. So
why bother with him if after all Jojo was not the subject of their going to that place. x x x(underscoring
supplied)
As stated earlier, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellants conviction, hence, the present petition.
In the main, appellant claims that there was failure to follow the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165,
hence, it compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized items.

It bears noting that the Information is for selling "0.03 gram" of shabu, and that the two heat-sealed plastic
sachets each also containing the same 0.03 gram of shabu allegedly confiscated from the house were
presented to corroborate the prosecutions evidence.
Sec. 21 of R.A. No 9165 provides:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,
plant sources or dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and or surrendered, for
proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
persons/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; x x x (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
The issue, in the event of non-compliance with above-quoted provision of R.A. No. 9165, does not pertain to
admissibility of evidence, but to weight-evidentiary merit or probative value thereof.
People v. Dela Cruz enlightens:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit
be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was
picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the
next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In the present case, the records do not show that the procedural requirements of Section 21 with respect to
the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs were followed. No physical inventory and photographs
were taken. On that score alone, the case for the prosecution fails, absent a plausible explanation to justify
failure to comply with the requirements.
Parenthetically, there is even no showing that coordination with PDEA prior to and after the conduct of the
buy-bust operation was made, in violation of Section 86 (a), Implementing Rules and Regulations to R.A.
9165.
Given the purpose of conducting a laboratory examination of the suspicious items seized to determine if
indeed they contain, in this case, shabu, a more strict standard is imposed by law to ascertain that they
are the sameitems seized or are not substituted or adulterated. Said standard has not been observed in the
present case.
The chain of custody was, however, broken after SPO2 Dionco failed to mark the first sachet which is the
subject of the sale and the subject of the Information. Why said sachet, together with the two others, was
delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory after more than eight hours from initial custody of the apprehending
officers was not even explained.

The police officers-members of the buy-bust team cannot bank on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their duties. The presumption has been destroyed upon their unjustified failure to conform to
the procedural requirements mentioned above.
The prosecution having failed to discharge its onus of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of
appellant, his exoneration is in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the appellate court is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Appellant, Joselito "Jojo" Nasara y Dahay, is ACQUITED for failure of the prosecution to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections who is ORDERED to
release appellant, unless he is being lawfully held for another offense, and to inform this Court of action
taken within ten (10) days from notice hereof.
SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 186459

September 1, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
NITA EUGENIO Y PEJER, Appellant.
CARPIO MORALES, J.
COMMENTS: (Physical inventory and photographing of the specimen is an indispensable requirement. Its
non-compliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused)
DECISION
Nita Eugenio y Pejer (appellant) was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City for
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, allegedly committed as follows:
On or about May 13, 2003 in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not
being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give
away to PO1 Aldrin Mariano, a police poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing three (3) centigrams (0.03 gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the
test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to law. (underscoring supplied)
From the evidence for the prosecution, the following version is culled:
On the night of May 13, 2003, at around 7:30 p.m., a confidential informant reported to PO1 Aldrin Mariano
(PO1 Mariano), officer-on-duty at the Pasig City Hall Detachment, that one alias "Aruba" was selling shabu
at Vicper Compound, Malinao, Pasig City.
P/Sr. Insp. Chief Rodrigo Villaruel at once formed a buy-bust team to conduct an operation composed of,
among others, PO3 Amilassan Salisa as team leader, and PO1 Mariano as poseur-buyer. PO1 Mariano,
who was given two one hundred peso bills bearing Serial Numbers BT219634 and XN547078 to be used as
buy-bust money, wrote his initials "ARM" thereon at the lower left portion.
The operation was recorded in the police blotter and coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) which gave it control number NOC-1305-03-10.
At around 8:00 in the evening, the team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to the
residence of appellant who was standing in front of her house. The informant at once introduced PO1
Mariano as buyer. As appellant inquired how much, PO1 Mariano handed her the two marked bills upon
which appellant drew out one substance-filled sachet from the "outside wall" of her house. At that instant,
PO1 Mariano removed his cap, the pre-arranged signal for the team members to, as they did, close in.
PO1 Mariano then held appellants arm, identified himself as a police officer, and apprised her of her
constitutional rights as he retrieved from her the buy-bust money. He thereafter marked "EXH-A
arm/05/13/03" on the substance-filled sachet "sold" to him by appellant.
The buy-bust team brought appellant to the Rizal Medical Center for physical check-up and later to the
police detachment office where P/Sr. Insp. Chief Villaruel prepared the following memorandum of May 13,

2003 addressed to the Chief of the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office, requesting the conduct
of laboratory examination on the seized substance-filled sachet to determine the presence of dangerous
drugs and their weight:
1. Respectfully forwarded to your good office herewith/attached (sic) submitted specimen for
laboratory examination to wit:
NATURE OF OFFENSE
NAME OF SUSPECT

D.T.P.O.

VIOLATION OF RA 9165
NITA EUGENIO Y PEJER,
57 years old, widow,
Res. At Vicper Compound,
Malinao, Pasig City
On or about 8:30 PM 13 May
2003 at Vicper Compound,
Malinao, Pasig City

ARRESTING OFFICER

SPECIMEN SUBMITTED

Elements of Mayors Special

Action Team/ City Hall
Detachment, Pasig City
Police Station represented by
PO1 Aldrin Mariano
One (1) heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet
containing undetermined
amount of suspected "shabu"
Marked EXH A ARM
05/13/03

2. Request acknowledge (sic) receipt. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Acting on the above-quoted memorandum, P/Sr. Insp. Annalee R. Forro, Forensic Chemical Officer of the
Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office, who received the sachet, conducted on the same night of
May 13, 2003, at around 8:33 P.M, a laboratory examination of the contents of the sachet, the result of
which she recorded in Chemistry Report No. D-889-03E wherein she concluded that the substance inside
the sachet weighed 0.03 gram and was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Hence, the filing of the Information against appellant.
Denying the charge against her, appellant gave the following version:
On May 11, 2003, while fetching water from a nearby well, she was, in the presence of family and
neighbors, accosted by police officers who brought her to the police station. At the station, she was
questioned whether she knew one "Baylene Ramba," to which she replied in the negative. She was later
surprised to learn that an Information for violation of R.A. 9165 had been filed against her.
Finding for the prosecution, the trial court, by Decision of May 31, 2005, convicted appellant, disposing as
follows:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused NITA EUGENIO y Pejer @ Aruba GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and imposes upon her the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine
of Php500,000.00

SO ORDERED. (underscoring supplied)

By Decision of September 16, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision.
In affirming the trial courts rejection of appellants defense, the appellate court held:
. . . As correctly observed by the trial court, the claim that accused-appellant was arrested without reason is
not supported by evidence. Not one of the alleged witnesses to the unlawful arrest, including accusedappellants own daughter, was presented to corroborate the claim. Hence, the court a quo is correct in
considering the defense incredible for being self-serving and uncorroborated. (underscoring supplied)
In her present appeal, appellant claims, in the main, that there was failure to follow the requirements of Sec.
21 of R.A. No. 9165, hence, it compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized item.
Sec. 21 of R.A. No 9165 provides:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,
plant sources or dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and or surrendered, for
proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
persons/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; x x x (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
Appellant specifically claims that no physical inventory and photographing of the specimen took place.
Respecting the required conduct of an inventory, since only one sachet was seized, failure to comply
therewith may understandably have been rendered unnecessary.
As for the required photograph of the seized item, a reading of the testimony of PO1 Mariano confirms the
prosecutions failure to follow such requirement:
Atty. Ronatay:
Q: Are you aware that it is required under the dangerous drugs law that in case of the buy-bust
operation,the subject specimen their (sic) must be a picture taken on the subject specimen?
A: What I said is that impossible, we have a buy-bust to verify.
Atty. Ronatay:
Your Honor, I think the answer is not responsive to the question. We moved (sic) to strike that out
and the witness to answer the question.
Court: Answer the question.
Witness:

A: Not yet maam.

Atty. Ronatay:
Q: How many times have you been engaged in buy-bust operation?
A: More or less ten maam.
Q: And in those ten cases, was there ever an occasion that the subject specimen, there was a
picture taken on that subject specimen?
A: None, maam.
Q: Are you also aware Mr. witness that under the dangerous drugs law, it is standard operating
procedure that in cases of operation specifically in a buy-bust operation, there has also be (sic) a
presence of the media?
A: I do not know, maam.
Q: In this case was there a media present at the time of the operation?
A: None maam.
Q: Are you also aware that under the dangerous drugs law, it is required that there has to be
coordination with the Local Brgy.?
A: None maam. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Failing to comply with the provision of Section 2 of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily doom the case for
the prosecution, however. People v. Pringas enlightens:
Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is
justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized
items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an
accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance
is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. (citation omitted, emphasis, italics and
underscoring supplied)
The Courts pronouncement in Pringas is based on the provision of Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 reading:
x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items; (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
Clearly, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu
was preserved.
As reflected in the above-quoted Memorandum of P/Sr. Insp. Chief Villaruel, the time of operation was "on
or about 8:30 P.M., 13 May 2003." If the allegedly seized substance-filled sachet was confiscated at 8:30
p.m., it is highly improbable that it was received at the Crime Laboratory at 8:33 P.M or a mere three

minutes after the seizure, given that appellant was after his arrest first brought to a hospital for physical
check-up.
Doubt is thus engendered on whether the object evidence subjected to laboratory examination and
presented in court is the same as that allegedly "sold" by appellant. In fine, the prosecution failed to prove
the integrity and evidentiary value of the 0.03 gram specimen.
Parenthetically, unlike in Pringas, the defense in the present case questioned early on, during the cross
examination of PO1 Mariano, the failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the inventory and
photographing requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. And the defense raised it again during the offer
of evidence by the prosecution, thus:
Atty. Ronatay:
xxxx
Exh. C - we object to its admission as well as the purpose for which they are being offered for being planted
evidence, your honor. (underscoring supplied)
The prosecution having failed to discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, the burden of the evidence did not shift to the defense to thus leave it unnecessary to
pass upon the defense evidence even if it were considered weak. Appellants acquittal based on reasonable
doubt is then in order.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant,
Nita Eugenio y Pejer, is ACQUITED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections for Women, Mandaluyong
City who is directed to cause the immediate release of appellant, unless she is being lawfully held for
another cause, and to inform this Court of action taken within ten (10) days from notice.
SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 189278

July 26, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
ELIZABETH MARCELINO y REYES, Accused-Appellant.
VELASCO, JR., J.
COMMENTS: (The failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules of
RA 9165 is not fatal. It does not render appellants arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him
inadmissible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.)
DECISION
This is an appeal from the June 29, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
03153 entitled People of the Philippines v. Elizabeth Marcelino y Reyes, which affirmed the Decision in
Criminal Case Nos. 3048-M-2002 and 3049-M-2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76 in Malolos
City, Bulacan. The RTC found accused-appellant Elizabeth Marcelino guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11 of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
Two Informations charged accused-appellant as follows:
Criminal Case No. 3048-M-2002
That on or about the 31st day of October, 2002, in the Municipality of Balagtas, Province of Bulacan,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority
of law and legal justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give
away, dispatch in transit and transport [a] dangerous drug consisting of one (1) [heat-sealed] transparent
plastic sachet of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.494 gram.
Criminal Case No. 3049-M-2002
That on or about the 31st day of October, 2002, in the Municipality of Balagtas, Province of Bulacan,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority
of law and legal justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession
and control [a] dangerous drug consisting of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 3.296 [grams].
During her arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.
The defense agreed to the following stipulations during the pre-trial:
1) the qualification and competence of Forensic Analyst Amilyn Flores-Maclid as an expert witness;
2) the existence of the request for laboratory examination signed by Police Senior Inspector Arthur
Felix Asis and received by the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory on November 1, 2002; and
3) the existence of Chemistry Report No. D-628-02 signed by Forensic Analyst Amilyn Flores-Maclid
including the specimens examined by said Forensic Analyst attached to the Chemistry Report
contained in a brown envelope with marking D-628-02-AFM consisting of two (2) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance with markings and recorded
net weights A(MDC-1)-0.494 gm. and B(MDC-2)-3.296 gms., respectively.

Version of the Prosecution

At the trial, the prosecution presented SPO1 Marciano Dela Cruz as its sole witness.
SPO1 Dela Cruz, a police officer stationed at the Balagtas Police Station in Bulacan, was part of a team that
conducted a test-buy on October 30, 2002 to verify a report of accused-appellant Elizabeth engaging in
illegal drug activities.
When the test-buy confirmed that Elizabeth was indeed selling illegal drugs, a team was formed to conduct
a buy-bust operation. SPO1 Dela Cruz was designated as poseur-buyer. He placed his initials "MDC" on a
five hundred peso bill to be used as boodle money.
On October 31, 2002, the buy-bust team headed for P. Castro St. Burol 1st, Balagtas, Bulacan at around
half past seven in the evening. SPO1 Dela Cruz and his asset went to meet Elizabeth and asked to
buy shabu worth five hundred pesos (PhP 500). Once Elizabeth had handed the shabu to SPO1 Dela Cruz,
he gave the pre-arranged signal, prompting SPO3 Felix Dela Cruz to approach them. SPO3 Dela Cruz
recovered the marked PhP 500 bill and another sachet of suspected shabu from Elizabeth. She was then
apprised of her constitutional rights. SPO1 Dela Cruz subsequently marked the sachet that was sold to him
as "MDC-1" and the sachet found on the person of Elizabeth as "MDC-2."
A request was later submitted to the crime laboratory for a laboratory examination of the seized
substances.Chemistry Report No. D-628-2002 confirmed that the subject drugs were positive for shabu.
Version of the Defense
The defense offered the testimonies of Elizabeth and tricycle driver Rodrigo Lavia, a neighbor.
In her defense, Elizabeth claimed that on October 31, 2002, she was at her home at P. Castro St., Burol 1st,
Balagtas, Batangas with her grandson and her sister, Consuelo Reyes, when they suddenly heard a knock
at the door. When Consuelo answered the door, three men suddenly entered the house and announced that
they were police officers.
Elizabeth recalled that the police officers who arrested her at her home were not the same ones that the
prosecution presented as members of the buy-bust operation. She also claimed that when she got to the
police station, a woman named Mila Trias told her, "Ngayon nakikilala mo na kung sinong kinalaban mo."
According to Elizabeth, she had a quarrel with Mila because she suspected Mila was having an affair with
her husband.
To corroborate Elizabeths story, Lavia testified that on October 31, 2002, at about 7:35 in the evening, he
was parked outside the house of Elizabeth. He was waiting for passengers when, suddenly, two "ownertype" jeeps arrived carrying two passengers each. The passengers were all male and dressed in civilian
clothes. All headed towards Elizabeths house. Elizabeth opened the door and the men entered the house,
with the door closing behind them. From the outside, Lavia heard Elizabeth shouting as to why the men
were searching her house. He approached the house and heard commotion inside. He heard sounds of
objects falling. Later, he saw the men coming out of the house and boarding Elizabeth into one of their
vehicles.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
On January 21, 2008, the RTC found Elizabeth guilty of the crimes charged based on what it found to be
the credible testimony of SPO1 Dela Cruz. In Criminal Case No. 3048-M-2002 (illegal sale of drugs), the
trial court found that all the elements of the crime were established by the prosecution with moral certainty.
In Criminal Case No. 3049-M-2002 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs), the trial court ruled that the
search conducted on Elizabeth was valid under the rule on search incidental to a lawful arrest.

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, accused ELIZABETH MARCELINO
y REYES is hereby CONVICTED:
[A] in Criminal Case No. 3048-M-2002, which charges accused with sale of [a] dangerous drug
consisting of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of methylamphetamine hydrochloride
commonly known as shabu, weighing 0.494 gram and a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002," and is SENTENCED to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and to pay the FINE of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);
[B] in Criminal Case No. 3049-M-2002 which charges accused for possession and control of
dangerous drug consisting of one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, weighing 3.296 grams and a dangerous drug, in violation
of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," and is SENTENCED to suffer the imprisonment of, applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE DAY, AS THE MINIMUM TERM, TO
THIRTEEN (13) YEARS, AS THE MAXIMUM TERM, and to pay the FINE of Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) x x x.
The Ruling of the Appellate Court
Dissatisfied with the RTCs Decision, Elizabeth appealed to the CA, arguing that the evidence presented
against her was inadmissible, since it was acquired during her unlawful arrest. She likewise insisted that her
guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The CA in its Decision affirmed the appealed RTC Decision. The appellate court ruled that Elizabeth was
estopped from questioning the legality of her arrest, as it was being raised for the first time on appeal. It
held that even the police officers had minor lapses in complying with Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165, there was
still no doubt that the shabu presented during the trial was the same substance retrieved from her.
Aggrieved, Elizabeth filed a Notice of Appeal from the CA Decision.
On December 2, 2009, this Court notified the parties that they may submit their supplemental briefs. The
People, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), manifested that it was dispensing with the
filing of a Supplemental Brief.
The Issues
I
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT A SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT
NECESSARY
II
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF
THE SHABU WAS PRESERVED
The Ruling of this Court
Accused-appellant Elizabeth reiterates that two test-buys were conducted before the actual buy-bust
operation was launched. She thus contends that after the two test-buys, the police officers certainly had

sufficient time to secure both a search warrant and a warrant of arrest but failed to do so. She argues that a
buy-bust operation should never be used as a cover for an illegal warrantless search and arrest.
She also imputes grave doubts on whether SPO1 Dela Cruz observed the requirements of RA 9165 on
inventory and photographing of the illegal substance, arguing that said police officer did not state where and
when he marked the sachets of shabu.
The OSG, on the other hand, argues that no search warrant and warrant of arrest were needed, a buy-bust
operation being recognized as a valid form of entrapment. Citing jurisprudence, the OSG claims that it is
ridiculous for the buy-bust team to first obtain a search warrant when a crime is committed before their
eyes.
As to the other contention of Elizabeth, the OSG refutes this by saying that the identity of the seized
substance was adequately established by the prosecution, as this was properly marked and its paper trail
ascertained, from the request for laboratory examination to the physical science report on the illegal
substance and the actual presentation in court.
We affirm Elizabeths conviction.
The appellate court correctly ruled that Elizabeth cannot question her arrest for the first time on appeal. And
even if we were to allow her to raise such issue, her appeal must still fail.
Search warrant and warrant of arrest not needed
In People v. Villamin, involving an accused arrested after he sold drugs during a buy-bust operation, the
Court ruled that it was a circumstance where a warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of
the Rules of Court. The same ruling applies to the instant case. When carried out with due regard for
constitutional and legal safeguards, it is a judicially sanctioned method of apprehending those involved in
illegal drug activities. It is a valid form of entrapment, as the idea to commit a crime comes not from the
police officers but from the accused himself. The accused is caught in the act and must be apprehended on
the spot. From the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest
illegal.
The illegal drug seized was not the "fruit of the poisonous tree" as the defense would like this Court to
believe. The seizure made by the buy-bust team falls under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule
126, Sec. 13 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently provides:
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used
or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
Since the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate, it follows that the search was also valid, and a
warrant was likewise not needed to conduct it.
Chain of custody
The prosecutions failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory and photograph of the
evidence confiscated will not result in accused-appellants acquittal of the crimes charged. Non-compliance
with the provisions of RA 9165 on the custody and disposition of dangerous drugs is not necessarily fatal to
the prosecutions case. Neither will it render the arrest of an accused illegal nor the items seized from her
inadmissible.
We discussed in People v. Pagkalinawan both what the law provides and the level of compliance it requires:
Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provides:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance
with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)1avvphi1
As can be gleaned from the language of Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules, it is clear that the failure of the
law enforcers to comply strictly with it is not fatal. It does not render appellants arrest illegal nor the
evidence adduced against him inadmissible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused."
Here, the chain of custody was established through the following links: (1) SPO1 Dela Cruz marked the
seized sachet with "MDC-1" for the sachet that was the subject of the buy-bust, and "MDC-2" for the sachet
found on accused-appellants person; (2) a request for laboratory examination of the seized items "MDC-1"
and "MDC-2" was signed by Police Senior Inspector Arthur Felix Asis; (3) the request and the marked items
seized were received by the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory; (4) Chemistry Report No. D-628-02
confirmed that the marked items seized from accused-appellant were shabu; and (5) the marked items were
offered in evidence as Exhibits "C-1" and "C-2."
As there is no proof to support the claim that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized shabu
have been compromised at some stage, we find no reason to overturn the finding of the trial court that what
were seized from Elizabeth were the same illegal drugs presented in the trial court. As it is, there was
substantial compliance with the requirements under RA 9165, and the prosecution adequately established
that there was an unbroken chain of custody over the shabu seized from Elizabeth.
Also working against Elizabeths cause is the presumption of regularity accorded those involved in the buybust operation. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is
given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties
in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Accused-appellant failed to overcome this
presumption by showing clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their
duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive.
Penalty Imposed
Criminal Case No. 3048-M-2002 (illegal sale of drugs)
The penalty for sale of illegal drugs under RA 9165 is the following:
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death

and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any
and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any
of such transactions.
Criminal Case No. 3049-M-2002
RA 9165 penalizes possession of dangerous drugs as follows:
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed
upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following
quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxxx
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu"; otherwise, if the quantity involved is
less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxxx
3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three
hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of
dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride,
marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other 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 quantity
possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
Finding the sentence handed by the lower court in both criminal cases to be within the range provided under
RA 9165, we affirm accused-appellant Elizabeths sentence for both charges.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03153
finding accused-appellant guilty of violation of Secs. 5 and 11 of Article II, RA 9165 is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 174862

June 19, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Appellee,

vs.
YVONNE SEVILLA CABALLERO, Appellant.

CORONA, J.:
COMMENTS: (Testimonies of police officers who conduct buy-bust operations are generally accorded full
faith and credit as they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. This presumption
can be overturned only if the accused is able to prove that the officers acted with improper motives.)
RESOLUTION
On December 9, 2002, appellant Yvonne Sevilla y Caballero was charged with violation of Section 5, Article
III of RA 9165 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 103 under the following Information:
That on or about the 4th day of December 2002 in Quezon City, Philippines, [appellant], not being
authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug did, then and there,
willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction,
0.02 gram of white crystalline substance containing [methamphetamine] hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Appellant pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
During trial, the prosecution presented SPO2 Levi Sevilla of Police Station 3 in Barrio Talipapa, Quezon City
as its principal witness. He testified that, on December 4, 2002, he received information about the illegal
drug trade at Gana Compound in Unang Sigaw, Balintawak, Quezon City. He immediately relayed this
information to the station chief and a buy-bust operation was thereupon organized. SPO2 Sevilla likewise
stated that he participated in the said operation as poseur buyer.
Upon reaching appellants residence at around 7:15 p.m., the informant knocked on appellants door and
introduced him (SPO2 Sevilla), saying "Ate Ybonne kung may item ka raw, itong kaibigan ko, gusto
umiscor." After the short conversation, appellant handed SPO2 Sevilla a sachet containing a white
crystalline substance while the latter gave the former a P100 marked bill. Thereafter, SPO2 Sevilla signaled
his companions that the transaction had been consummated.
Appellant was promptly arrested and immediately brought to the station. SPO2 Sevilla surrendered the
sachet and the P100 marked bill to the desk officer. Subsequently, a forensic chemist of the Philippine
National Police confirmed that the white crystalline substance in the sachet was methampethamine
hydrochloride or "shabu."
For her defense, appellant insisted she was innocent. She claimed that she and her daughter were about to
have dinner when several policemen barged into her house and arrested her. The arrest was allegedly
because of her refusal to cooperate with them to entrap "Nene," a known drug pusher in the area.lavvphi1
In a decision dated December 20, 2004, the RTC noted that, despite her assertion that her daughter was
present during her arrest, none of her family members corroborated her testimony. It pointed out:
With the scenario painted by the [appellant] in her testimony, it is clear that her daughter, who was already
24-years-old, was present when the police barged into their house and the latter was able to witness how
the [appellant] was forcibly arrested by the police. Assuming that this is true, [appellants] daughter, had
behaved very unusual, indifferent and unnatural for she did not even exert any form of resistance if she is of
the belief that her mother is innocent of the crime being attributed by the police. Human instinct and
nature dictate that a person would, without hesitation, instantly lift a finger to someone whose life and limb is
endangered for no justifiable reason, especially if that person who needed help is no less than his or her
mother, although he or she believes otherwise.
Thus, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article III of RA
9165 and sentenced her to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.

The Court of Appeals, on intermediate appellate review, affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto.
We dismiss the appeal.
In cases involving the sale of illegal drugs, the prosecution must prove (1) the identity of the seller, the
object and the consideration and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. Here, SPO2
Sevilla testified that appellant handed him a sachet containing metamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in
exchange for P100 during a buy bust operation.1awphil
Testimonies of police officers who conduct buy-bust operations are generally accorded full faith and credit
as they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. This presumption can be
overturned only if the accused is able to prove that the officers acted with improper motives.
Inasmuch as appellant failed to show that SPO2 Sevilla and his companions had improper motives to
charge her, we uphold the legality of the buy-bust operation. It is well-settled that a buy-bust operation
(which is a form of entrapment) is a valid means of arresting violators of RA 9165. 13
WHEREFORE, the June 26, 2006 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00492 is
herebyAFFIRMED. Appellant Yvonne Sevilla y Caballero is found guilty of violating Section 5, Article III of
Republic Act No. 9165 and is accordingly sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.
The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103 is ordered to transfer the custody of the 0.02 gram of
methamphetamine hydrochloride to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 179937

July 17, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs.

GERALD LIBREA, Appellant.
CARPIO MORALES, J.
COMMENTS: (Who entrusted the substance to him and requested him to submit it for examination? For
how long was he in possession of the evidence before he turned it over to the PNP Crime Laboratory? Who

else had access to the specimen from the time it was allegedly taken from appellants when arrested? These
questions should be answered satisfactorily to determine whether the integrity of the evidence was
compromised in any way. Otherwise, the prosecution cannot maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of
the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.)
DECISION
Gerald Librea (appellant) was charged and convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City,
Batangas of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165.
The Information against appellant reads:
That on or about the 9th day of October 2003 at about 7:30 oclock [sic] in the evening at Basang Hamog,
Barangay 1, Lipa City, Philippines, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully sell, deliver, dispose or give away to a police officer/informer-poseur buyer, 0.04
grams/s of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known as "shabu", which is a dangerous drug,
contained in one (1) plastic sachet/s. (Underscoring supplied)
At the pre-trial, appellant admitted, among other things, the "authenticity and due execution of Chemistry
Report No. D-2424-03 prepared by P/Sr. Insp. Lorna R. Tria, but den[ied] that the specimen subject matter
thereof came from [him]."
From the testimonies of prosecution witnesses PChief Insp. Dante Novicio (Novicio) and SPO1 Alexander
Yema (Yema) of the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (Task Force) of the Lipa City Police
Station, the following version is gathered:
On receipt from an "asset-informant" by Novicio of information that appellant was actively pushing drugs in
various areas of Lipa City, surveillance and a test-buy was conducted which validated the
information.1avvphi1
A buy-bust operation was soon conducted on October 9, 2003 at around 7:30 in the evening at "a squatters
area" in Basang Hamog, Barangay 1, Lipa City, about 30 meters from the police station. Novicio, Yema, and
PO1 Cleofe Pera (Cleofe), in the company of the informant who was given two P100 bills on which were
marked "DPN" beside their serial numbers, repaired to Basang Hamog. As the informant approached
appellant who was standing by a store, Novicio, Yema, and Cleofe positioned themselves at a spot seven to
ten meters away from appellant.
After the informant spoke to appellant to whom he gave the marked bills, appellant handed him a small
plastic sachet which he scrutinized and brought to the members of the buy-bust team. Soon after Yema
received the sachet and smelled it to be shabu, he, Novicio, and Cleofe approached appellant, introduced
themselves as members of the police force, informed him of his rights, arrested him, and conducted a body
search which yielded the two marked P100 bills.
Appellant was thereupon brought to the police station where Yema marked the sachet with "ACY"
(representing his initials) on one side and "GCL" (representing the initials of appellant) on the other. Cleofe
at once prepared the Inventory of Confiscated/Seized Items (Inventory) on which appellant refused to affix
his signature and a request for laboratory examination.
Upon the other hand, appellant gave his version as follows:
After 7:00 in the evening of October 9, 2003, while he was at the store of his aunt Ester Calingasan (Ester)
waiting for the pancit which he had ordered, three police officers arrived, arrested him, and forcibly took him
to the police headquarters where he was detained. No test-buy or buy-bust operation took place. He saw
the Inventory and the plastic sachet for the first time during the trial.

Ester corroborated appellants testimony, adding that after he was arrested, she fetched his mother and
accompanied her to the police headquarters where appellant was detained.
Branch 12 of the Lipa City RTC convicted appellant as charged, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, GERALD LIBREA y CAMITAN, guilty beyond reasonable
doubt, as principal by direct participation, of the crime of Violation [of] Section 5, 1st paragraph, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and
sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and pay a fine of P500,000.00 and the costs.
The 0.04 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride subject of this case is forfeited in favor of the
government and ordered turned over to the Chief of Police of Lipa City for proper disposal in accordance
with law.
Also, let the corresponding commitment order be issued for the transfer of detention of the accused to the
Bureau of Correction, Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila.
Given this 14th day of September, 2005 at Lipa City.
Before the Court of Appeals, appellant faulted the trial court
I
x x x IN CONVICTING [HIM] FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165
NOTWITHSTANDING THE NON-PRESENTATION OF THE POSEUR-BUYER.
II
x x x IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION POLICE WITNESSES
NOTWITHSTANDING THE IRREGULARITIES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES.
III
x x x IN FINDING [HIM] GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (Underscoring supplied)
By Decision of June 29, 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision, hence, the present
appeal. Both appellant and the Solicitor General adopted their respective arguments in the Briefs they had
filed before the appellate court.
Appellant assails, among other things, the failure of the buy-bust team to photograph the allegedly
confiscated sachet and to have a representative of the media as well as of the Department of Justice (DOJ)
sign the Inventory of Confiscated/Seized Items, as required under Section 21 of RA 9165.
Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal as long as
there is justifiable ground therefor and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
The prosecution justifies the failure of the buy-bust team to have the confiscated sachet photographed with
the non-availability of a photographer. And it claims that no DOJ, as well as media representative, arrived at
the time and after the buy-bust operation took place. Without passing on the merits of this claim, the Court
finds that the integrity, as well as the evidentiary value of the confiscated item, was not shown to have been
preserved.

While Yema claimed to have marked the plastic sachet at the police station, what was done to it afterwards
remains unexplained.
And there is no showing that the substance allegedly confiscated was the same substance which was
subjected to examination. As earlier mentioned, while during pre-trial appellant admitted the authenticity and
due execution of the laboratory report, he denied that the specimen subject thereof was taken from him.
More. The request for forensic examination, together with the specimen, was delivered to the laboratory by
a certain SPO4 D.R. Mercado (Mercado), who was not part of the buy-bust team, at 11:15 in the morning of
October 10, 2003, a day after the conduct of the alleged buy-bust operation. There is no showing, however,
under what circumstances Mercado, who did not take the witness stand, came into possession of the
specimen. Apropos is the Courts ruling in People v. Ong:
x x x [T]he Memorandum-Request for Laboratory Examination . . . indicates that a certain SPO4 Castro
submitted the specimen for examination. However, the rest of the records of the case failed to show the role
of SPO4 Castro in the buy-bust operation, if any. x x x
x x x Since SPO4 Castro appears not to be part of the buy-bust team, how and when did he get hold of the
specimen examined by Police Inspector Eustaquio? Who entrusted the substance to him and requested him
to submit it for examination? For how long was he in possession of the evidence before he turned it over to
the PNP Crime Laboratory? Who else had access to the specimen from the time it was allegedly taken from
appellants when arrested? These questions should be answered satisfactorily to determine whether the
integrity of the evidence was compromised in any way. Otherwise, the prosecution cannot maintain that it
was able to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
On this score alone, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of
appellant. His acquittal is thus in order.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 29, 2007 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Appellant, GERALD LIBREA, is ACQUITTED of the crime charged and is ordered released from custody,
unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, who is
DIRECTED to implement it immediately and to inform this Court within five (5) days of action taken.
SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 187741

August 8, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
PETER M. CAMPOMANES and EDITH MENDOZA, Accused-Appellants.
MENDOZA, J.:
COMMENTS: (A successful prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs must establish the following
elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor. In the prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof

that the transaction or sale actually took place and the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as
evidence.)
DECISION
Before the Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the November 14,
2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC. No. 01469, which affirmed the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Pasig City (RTC). The trial court convicted petitioner Edith Mendoza
and her co-accused Peter Campomanes of having committed a violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On March 24, 2003, two (2) separate informations for violation of Section 5 and Section 12, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 were filed with the RTC of Pasig City. The first information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 12255D charged accused Campomanes and petitioner with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 in
relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. This information reads:
On or about March 22, 2003 in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused,
conspiring, and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, not being
lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and gave away
to PO1 Allan Mapula, a police poseur buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing eight
(8) centigram (0.08 gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to law.
The second information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 12256-D, charged only accused Campomanes with
the crime of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia (Section 12). This second case is not covered by this
disposition as accused Peter Campomanes has already passed away. The Court shall, however, refer to his
defense as long as it is relevant to the resolution of the case.
As can be gleaned from the prosecution evidence, it appears that sometime in March 2003, after receipt of
numerous reports about the drug activities of one alias "Pete" in Bagong Ilog, Pasig City, PO1 Mapula was
dispatched by his superior officer to conduct casing and surveillance operations against said person. On
March 22, 2003, after verifying and confirming the reports, PO1 Mapula reported his findings to his superior,
SPO1 Danilo Tuano (SPO1 Tuano), who immediately formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. The
team members were PO1 Allan Mapula, the poseur-buyer; PO2 Lemuel Laro; PO3 Carlo Luna (PO3 Luna);
and PO1 Michael Espares (PO1 Espares).
Before proceeding to the target area, the police officers coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) and prepared the buy-bust money consisting of one (1) one hundred peso (P100.00) bill.
After a briefing, the team, together with the informant, proceeded to Francisco St., Bagong Ilog, Pasig City.
At around 4:15 oclock in the afternoon, PO1 Mapula and the informant went to the house of Pete at No. 17
Francisco St. while the other team members strategically positioned themselves nearby. Upon reaching the
house of Pete, the informant knocked at the steel gate. A female person, who was later identified as
petitioner Edith Mendoza, opened the gate and asked the informant, "Kukuha ka ba?" The informant replied,
"Itong kasama ko, kukuha siya," referring to PO1 Mapula. PO1 Mapula replied, "Piso lang, panggamit lang,"
and handed to her the marked P100.00 bill with serial number VJ979363. Upon receipt of the marked
money, petitioner went back inside the house.
After a while, Pete came out and handed to PO1 Mapula a plastic sachet containing an undetermined
amount of white crystalline substance. Upon receiving it, PO1 Mapula took hold of Pete and removed his
cap signifying a positive bust. Before the other team members could get near them, Pete ran inside the
house. PO1 Mapula and the other team members ran after him and were able to corner him in the kitchen.
Pete was frisked and the marked 100-peso bill was recovered from him. In the presence of the petitioner,
PO1 Mapula immediately marked the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with Exhibit "A,"

AVM-PMC-03/22/03, and the P100-peso bill with AVM. PO1 Mapula and PO2 Laro also saw several drug
paraphernalia on the table beside where petitioner was seated. There were four (4) aluminum foil strips,
three (3) improvised burners, three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, one (1) improvised plastic
pipe, one (1) improvised tooter, two (2) disposable lighters colored yellow, one (1) improvised burner, and
one (1) improvised bamboo sealer.
Thereafter, the police officers brought Pete and the petitioner to their office, together with the seized items plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, marked money and drug paraphernalia. It was only
then that the police officers learned that Pete was Peter M. Campomanes. Upon arriving at their office, PO1
Mapula and PO2 Laro turned over the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and the drug
paraphernalia to their investigator for the preparation of the request for laboratory examination. Then, the
marked pieces of evidence were brought by PO1 Mapula to the Eastern Police District (EPD) Crime
Laboratory for chemical analysis.
Police Inspector Lourdeliza M. Gural, a forensic chemist, conducted a qualitative examination of the
specimen, which tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. She then
prepared and issued Chemistry Report No. D-522-2003E containing her findings.
Accused Campomanes and petitioner denied the accusations against them. Campomanes claimed that on
March 22, 2003, he was sleeping in his bedroom at No. 17 Francisco St., Bagong Ilog, Pasig City when five
(5) police officers, all wearing civilian clothes, entered his two-storey house; that two of the police officers,
PO3 Luna and PO2 Laro, entered his room, forced him out of his bed, handcuffed him, and brought him to
the living room where his boarder, petitioner Edith Mendoza, was already seated; that while they were in the
living room, PO1 Esperas and PO1 Mapula searched his room and petitioners room located on the second
floor of his house; that the police officers did not ask permission before they made the search; and that the
police officers brought them to the police station without informing them of the charges.
Accused Campomanes also denied that he sold shabu to PO1 Mapula or PO2 Laro. He did admit, however,
that he used and sold shabu to his peers; that he sourced his shabu from another drug pusher in a place
called the barracks; that police officers asked him to accompany them to the barracks but the drug pusher
was not there so they went back to the headquarters; and that his caretaker told him that the police officers
were asking for five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos.
Petitioner Edith Mendoza corroborated the testimony of Campomanes. She claimed that on March 22, 2003
at around 4:15 oclock in the afternoon, she was in her boarding house owned by Campomanes; that she
was cleaning the house when five (5) male persons entered the house; that four (4) of them went straight to
the room of Campomanes; that when she asked them what they needed, they told her to sit on the sofa and
keep quiet or they would slap her; that after the four men had searched the room of Campomanes, they
also searched her room and the other rooms rented by the other boarders; that the police officers forced
them to go to the police station for investigation; that she was not hurt or injured by the policemen; and that
she did not file any criminal complaint against them.
On February 22, 2005, the RTC rendered a decision convicting both accused Campomanes and the
petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 12255-D both accused Peter Campomanes and Edith Mendoza are hereby found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (illegal
sale of shabu) and are hereby sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to solidarily pay a FINE of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 12256-D, accused Peter Campomanes is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 12, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (illegal possession of drug

paraphernalia) and is hereby sentenced to Six Months and One (1) Day to Four (4) Years and a Fine of Ten
Thousand Pesos (PHP10,000.00)
Considering the penalty imposed by the Court, the immediate commitment of accused Peter Campomanes
and Edith Mendoza to the National Penitentiary, New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City and the Correctional
Institute for Women, Mandaluyong City, respectively, is hereby ordered.
Pursuant to Section 20 of Republic Act 9165, the amount of PHP100.00 representing the proceeds from
illegal sale of the plastic sachet of shabu is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government.
Again, pursuant to Section 21 of the same law, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) is hereby
ordered to take charge and have custody of the sachet of shabu subject of Criminal Case No. 12255-D.
Costs against the accused.
On March 1, 2005, accused Campomanes and petitioner filed a notice of appeal. However, on April 21,
2005, a motion to withdraw the notice of appeal with motion for reconsideration was filed by accused. On
June 29, 2005, the RTC issued an order denying the motion pursuant to Section 7, Rule 120 of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Elevated before it, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC decision based on the
testimonies of PO1 Mapula and PO2 Laro on the circumstances surrounding the buy-bust operation. The
CA found no reason to overturn the RTC findings as it assessed the witnesses to be candid and
straightforward. It rejected the defense of denial and frame-up and gave greater credence to PO1 Mapulas
testimony favoring it with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. It also
sustained the findings of the trial court that conspiracy existed between accused Campomanes and the
petitioner. The CA brushed aside the attack on the non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 citing
the case of People v. Pringas, where it was held that non-compliance is not fatal as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the confiscated items were properly preserved.
As earlier mentioned, the Chief Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison informed the Court that accused
Peter Campomanes died on March 14, 2007 at the NBP Hospital. Attached to the letter was his Death
Certificate. Hence, this appeal shall proceed only with respect to petitioner Edith Mendoza in Criminal Case
No. 12255-D.
From the records, the principal issues raised in this case are the following:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE POLICE OFFICERS FOLLOWED THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE IN THE
INITIAL CUSTODY OF THE DRUGS SEIZED AND/OR CONFISCATED AS PROVIDED UNDER SEC. 21
PAR. A OF RA 9165.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE HEREIN QUESTIONED DECISION OF THE COURT A QUO IS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST EN BANC JURISPRUDENCE.
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED WITH
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
In the Supplemental Appellants Brief filed by petitioner, she added the following errors:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TWO (2) ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
CONSPIRED AND CONFEDERATED WITH ONE ANOTHER IN THE COMMISSION OF THE
CRIME CHARGED.

II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDITH MENDOZA
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATION OF SEC. 5, ARTICLE II, R.A. NO. 9165.
In sum, the issues to be resolved are (1) the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation; and (2) the chain of custody of the seized shabu.
Regarding the first issue, the petitioner argues that the presumption of regularity, upon which her conviction
rests, should not take precedence over the presumption of innocence. According to her, the trial court
overlooked the conflicting testimonies of PO1 Mapula and PO2 Laro. PO1 Mapula testified that he handed
the buy-bust money to petitioner and, later, Campomanes handed a sachet of shabu to him. PO2 Laro, on
the other hand, said that he saw PO1 Mapula talking to a female person and then exchanged something
with Campomanes. In other words, the prosecution witnesses testimonies were not congruent as to who
received the buy-bust money. Moreover, PO2 Laro did not identify her as the woman who talked with PO1
Mapula.
The Court finds no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
Settled is the rule that the findings and conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled
to great respect because the trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as
they testify.The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court
of Appeals as in this case.
A successful prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs must establish the following elements: (1)
identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment therefor. In the prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place and the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.
In the present case, all the elements have been clearly established. PO1 Mapula, who acted as the poseurbuyer, positively identified petitioner as the person who came out of the house, and dealt with him and the
informant during the buy-bust operation. It was the petitioner herself who asked what they needed and,
upon learning that they would buy shabu, took the buy-bust money and went inside the house. After a while,
Campomanes came out and handed to PO1 Mapula a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
Upon examination, the white crystalline substance bought by PO1 Mapula from petitioner tested positive
for shabu per Chemistry Report No. D-522-2003E issued by the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory.
Contrary to the claim of accused, the Court finds no material inconsistency or contradiction in the
testimonies of PO1 Mapula and PO2 Laro. The alleged inconsistencies or contradictions cited by petitioner
are not cogent enough to overturn her conviction. The testimonies of witnesses only need to corroborate
one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime. This Court has repeatedly
held that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details
and not actually touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair their credibility.
Thus, the Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the witnesses,
unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked or the significance of
which has been misinterpreted by the trial court. This arises from the fact that the lower courts are in a
better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their
deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.
As to the second issue, petitioner questions the integrity of the evidence used against her on the ground of
failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia
particularly the inventory and photographing of the seized items as required under Section 21 of R.A. No.

9165. The failure cast serious doubt on whether or not the specimens presented in court were the ones
actually confiscated from her.
The Court does not agree.
Section 21(a) of Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 provides that:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in
case of warrantless seizures; Provided further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
Although Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a
physical inventory of the seized items and photograph them, non-compliance with said section 21 is not
fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. Thus, the prosecution must
demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved.
We note that nowhere in the prosecution evidence does it show the "justifiable ground" which may excuse
the police operatives involved in the buy-bust operation in the case at bar from complying with Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs and drug
paraphernalia confiscated and/or seized. However, such omission shall not render accused-appellants
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him as inadmissible in evidence. In People v. Naelga, We
have explained that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items because the same will be utilized in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
It must be stressed that said "justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light of the apparent failure of
the accused-appellant to challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of disposition and preservation
of the subject drugs and drug paraphernalia before the RTC. She cannot be allowed too late in the day to
question the police officers alleged non-compliance with Section 21 for the first time on appeal. In People v.
Sta. Maria, in which the very same issue was raised, We ruled:
Indeed, the police officers alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not
raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did
appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items
that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state
in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on
appeal. (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the drugs seized was
properly preserved. The records of the case disclose that after PO1 Mapula seized the sachet of shabu and
the buy-bust
money, he immediately marked them with his initials in the presence of Campomanes and the petitioner.
Then, Campomanes and the petitioner were brought for investigation to the police station where PO1
Mapula and PO2 Laro turned over the sachet of shabu and drug paraphernalia to the police investigator for

the preparation of the request for laboratory examination. The specimen, together with the request, was
subsequently forwarded by PO1 Mapula himself to the EPD crime laboratory for chemical analysis. Per
Chemistry Report No. D-522-2003E of P/Insp. Gural, the specimen was found to be methylamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu). These links in the chain of custody are undisputed; the integrity of the seized drugs
remains intact.
WHEREFORE, the November 14, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-HC. NO. 01469, is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.