RA 9165 CASE

1.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 179940

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
Chairperson.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
- versus - CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA and
REYES, JJ.

Promulgated:
NORBERTO DEL MONTE y
GAPAY @ OBET, April 23, 2008
Accused-Appellant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Assailed before Us is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.

CR-H.C. No. 02070 dated 28 May 2007 which affirmed with modification the
Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78, in
Criminal Case No. 3437-M-02, finding accused-appellant Norberto del
Monte, a.k.a. Obet, guilty of violation of Section 5,[3] Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

On 11 December 2002, accused-appellant was charged with Violation of

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accusatory portion of the
information reads:
 That on or about the 10th day of December 2002, in the municipality of
Baliuag, 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 wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away, dispatch in transit and
transport dangerous drug consisting of one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 0.290
gram.[4]

The case was raffled to Branch 78 of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan and
docketed as Criminal Case No. 3437-M-02.

When arraigned on 20 January 2003, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio,

pleaded Not Guilty to the charge.[5] On 17 February 2003, the pre-trial conference
was concluded.[6] Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented as its lone witness PO1 Gaudencio M. Tolentino,

Jr., the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation conducted against appellant, and a
member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office 3/Special Enforcement Unit (SEU)
stationed at the Field Office, Barangay Tarcan, Baliuag, Bulacan.

The version of the prosecution is as follows:

On 10 December 2002, at around 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, a confidential

informant went to the office of the PDEA SEU in Barangay Tarcan, Baliuag,
Bulacan and reported that appellant was selling shabu. Upon receipt of said
information, a briefing on a buy-bust operation against appellant was
conducted. The team was composed of SPO2 Hashim S. Maung, as team leader,
PO1 Gaudencio Tolentino, Jr. as the poseur-buyer, and PO1 Antonio Barreras as
back-up operative. After the briefing, the team, together with the confidential
informant, proceeded to Poblacion Dike for the execution of the buy-bust
operation.

When the team arrived at appellants place, they saw the appellant standing
alone in front of the gate. The informant and PO1 Tolentino approached
appellant. The informant introduced PO1 Tolentino to appellant as his friend,
saying Barkada ko, user. PO1 Tolentino gave appellant P300.00 consisting of three
marked P100 bills.[7] The bills were marked with GT JR, PO1 Tolentinos
initials. Upon receiving the P300.00, appellant took out a plastic sachet from his
pocket and handed it over to PO1 Tolentino. As a pre-arranged signal, PO1
Tolentino lit a cigarette signifying that the sale had been consummated. PO1
Barreras arrived, arrested appellant and recovered from the latter the marked
money.

The white crystalline substance[8] in the plastic sachet which was sold to
PO1 Tolentino was forwarded to PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3,
Malolos, Bulacan, for laboratory examination to determine the presence of the any
dangerous drug. The request for laboratory examination was signed by SPO2
Maung.[9] Per Chemistry Report No. D-728-2002,[10] the substance bought from
appellant was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

The testimony of Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria, Forensic Chemical Officer who
examined the substance bought from appellant, was dispensed after both
prosecution and defense stipulated that the witness will merely testify on the fact
that the drugs subject matter of this case was forwarded to their office for
laboratory examination and that laboratory examination was indeed conducted and
the result was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.[11]

For the defense, the appellant took the witness stand, together with his
common-law wife, Amelia Mendoza; and nephew, Alejandro Lim.

From their collective testimonies, the defense version goes like this:

On 10 December 2002, appellant was sleeping in his sisters house in

Poblacion Dike when a commotion woke him up. His nephew, Alejandro Lim, was
shouting because the latter, together with appellants common-law wife, Amelia
Mendoza, and a niece, was being punched and kicked by several police
officers. When appellant tried to pacify the policemen and ask them why they were
beating up his common-law wife and other relatives, the policemen arrested him,
mauled him, punched him on the chest, slapped him and hit him with a palo-
palo. He sustained swollen face, lips and tooth. His common-law wife was
likewise hit on the chest with the palo-palo.

The policemen then took appellant and his common-law wife to a house
located in the middle of a field where the former demanded P15,000.00 for their
liberty. The next day, appellant was brought to the police station.

Amelia Mendoza identified PO1 Tolentino and PO1 Barreras as the police
officers who manhandled them and who demanded P15,000.00 so that she and
appellant could go home. The following day at 6:00 a.m., she said her child and
cousin arrived with the P15,000.00. She was released but appellant was
detained. She does not know why the police officers filed this case against
appellant. What she knows is that they were asking money from them.

Alejandro Lim merely corroborated the testimonies of appellant and Amelia

Mendoza.

On 8 March 2004, the trial court rendered its decision convicting appellant
of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and sentenced him
to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P5,000,000.00. The dispostive portion of
the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court hereby finds

accused Norberto del Monte y Gapay @ Obet GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Art. II of R.A.
9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT
and a fine of P5,000,000.00. With cost.

The drugs subject matter of this case is hereby ordered forfeited in favor
of the government. The Branch of this Court is directed to turn over the
same to the Dangerous Drugs Board within ten (10) days from receipt
hereof for proper disposal thereof.[12]

The trial court found the lone testimony of PO1 Gaudencio M. Tolentino, Jr.
to be credible and straightforward. It established the fact that appellant was caught
selling shabu during an entrapment operation conducted on 10 December
2002. Appellant was identified as the person from whom PO1 Tolentino
bought P300.00 worth of shabu as confirmed by Chemistry Report No. D-728-
2002. On the other hand, the trial court was not convinced by appellants defense of
frame-up and denial. Appellant failed to substantiate his claims that he was merely
sleeping and was awakened by the screams of his relatives who were being mauled
by the police officers.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 10 March 2004.[13] With the filing
thereof, the trial court directed the immediate transmittal of the entire records of
the case to us.[14] However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[15] the case
was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.[16]

On 28 May 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision but
reduced the fine imposed on appellant to P500,000.00. It disposed of the case as
follows:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the decision dated

March 8, 2004 of the RTC, Branch 78, Malolos, Bulacan, in Criminal
Case No. 3437-M-02, finding accused-appellant Norberto del Monte
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II,
Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment is AFFIRMEDwith the MODIFICATION that the
amount of fine imposed upon him is reduced from P5,000,000.00
to P500,000.00.[17]

A Notice of Appeal having been timely filed by appellant, the Court of Appeals
forwarded the records of the case to us for further review.[18]

In our Resolution[19] dated 10 December 2007, the parties were notified that
they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within 30
days from notice. Both appellant and appellee opted not to file a supplemental brief
on the ground they had exhaustively argued all the relevant issues in their
respective briefs and the filing of a supplemental brief would only contain a
repetition of the arguments already discussed therein.

Appellant makes a lone assignment of error:

 THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED
DESPITE THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST
HIM FOR FAILURE OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS TO COMPLY
WITH SECTION 21 OF R.A. 9165.[20]

Appellant anchors his appeal on the arresting policemens failure to strictly comply
with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. He claims that pictures of him together
with the alleged confiscated shabu were not taken immediately upon his arrest as
shown by the testimony of the lone prosecution witness. He adds that PO1
Tolentino and PO1 Antonio Barreras, the police officers who had initial custody of
the drug allegedly seized and confiscated, did not conduct a physical inventory of
the same in his presence as shown by their joint affidavit of arrest. Their failure to
abide by said section casts doubt on both his arrest and the admissibility of the
evidence adduced against him.

At the outset, it must be stated that appellant raised the police officers alleged non-
compliance with Section 21[21] of Republic Act No. 9165 for the first time on
appeal. This, he cannot do. It is too late in the day for him to do so. In People v.
Sta. Maria[22] in which the very same issue was raised, we ruled:

The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable

grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police
officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying
with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not
question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from
him. 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. (Emphases supplied.)
In People v. Pringas,[23] we explained that non-compliance with Section 21 will not
render an accuseds 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. In the case at bar, appellant
never questioned the custody and disposition of the drug that was taken from
him. In fact, he stipulated that the drug subject matter of this case was forwarded to
PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3, Malolos, Bulacan for laboratory
examination which examination gave positive result for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. We thus find the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the drug seized from appellant not to have been compromised.

We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly
the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or
seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule
128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible,
there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or
rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will
accorded it by the courts. One example is that provided in Section 31 of Rule 132
of the Rules of Court wherein a party producing a document as genuine which has
been altered and appears to be altered after its execution, in a part material to the
question in dispute, must account for the alteration. His failure to do so shall make
the document inadmissible in evidence. This is clearly provided for in the rules.

We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring
about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-
compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there
is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight
evidentiary merit or probative value to be given the evidence. The weight to be
given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in
each case.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[24] What is material to the
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or
sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence
of corpus delicti.[25]

All these elements have been shown in the instant case. The prosecution
clearly showed that the sale of the drugs actually happened and that
the shabu subject of the sale was brought and identified in court. The poseur buyer
positively identified appellant as the seller of the shabu. Per Chemistry Report No.
D-728-2002 of Forensic Chemical Officer Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria, the substance,
weighing 0.290 gram, which was bought by PO1 Tolentino from appellant in
consideration of P300.00, was examined and found to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu).

In the case before us, we find the testimony of the poseur-buyer, together
with the dangerous drug taken from appellant, more than sufficient to prove the
crime charged.Considering that this Court has access only to the cold and
impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon the assessment of
the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and
demeanor of the witnesses during trial. It is a fundamental rule that findings of the
trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded
respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative,
arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The
reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility
of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying during the trial.[26]
The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are
sustained by the Court of Appeals.[27] Finding no compelling reason to depart from
the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we affirm their
findings.

Appellant denies selling shabu to the poseur-buyer insisting that he was

framed, the evidence against him being planted, and that the police officers were
exacting P15,000.00 from him.

In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that appellant was the subject
of a buy-bust operation. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, his identity as
seller of the shabu can no longer be doubted. Against the positive testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses, appellants plain denial of the offenses charged,
unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply
fail.[28] Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this Court,
because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove.Moreover, it is a common
and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs
Act.[29] For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing
evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed
their duties in a regular and proper manner.[30] This, appellant failed to do. The
presumption remained unrebutted because the defense failed to present clear and
convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or
that they were inspired by an improper motive.
The presentation of his common-law wife, Amelia Mendoza, and his
nephew, Alejandro Lim, to support his claims fails to sway. We find both
witnesses not to be credible.Their testimonies are suspect and cannot be given
credence without clear and convincing evidence. Their claims, as well as that of
appellant, that they were maltreated and suffered injuries remain
unsubstantiated. As found by the trial court:

The accused, on the other hand, in an effort to exculpate himself

from liability raised the defense of frame-up. He alleged that at the time
of the alleged buy bust he was merely sleeping at the house of his
sister. That he was awakened by the yells and screams of his relatives as
they were being mauled by the police officers. However, this Court is
not convinced. Accused failed to substantiate these claims of
maltreatment even in the face of his wifes and nephews testimony. No
evidence was presented to prove the same other than their self-serving
claims.[31]

Moreover, we agree with the observation of the Office of the Solicitor General that
the witnesses for the defense cannot even agree on what time the arresting
policemen allegedly arrived in their house. It explained:

To elaborate, appellant testified that it was 3 oclock in the afternoon

of December 10, 2002 when he was roused from his sleep by the
policemen who barged into the house of his sister (TSN, July 7, 2003, p.
2). His common-law wife, however, testified that it was 10-11 oclock in
the morning when the policemen came to the house (TSN, Oct. 13, 2003,
 p. 6). On the other hand, Alejandro Lim testified that he went to sleep
at 11 oclock in the morning and it was 10 oclock in the morning when
the policemen arrived (TSN, Feb.2, 2004, p. 6). He thus tried to depict
an absurd situation that the policemen arrived first before he went to
sleep with appellant.[32]

Having established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements constituting the
illegal sale of drugs, we are constrained to uphold appellants conviction.

The sale of shabu is penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act

No. 9165. Said section reads:

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.

Under said law, the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of its quantity and
purity, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine of P500,000.00
to P10,000,000.00. For selling 0.290 gram of shabu to PO1 Tolentino, and there
being no modifying circumstance alleged in the information, the trial court, as
sustained by the Court of Appeals, correctly imposed the penalty of life
imprisonment in accordance with Article 63(2)[33] of the Revised Penal Code.
As regards the fine to be imposed on appellant, the trial court pegged the
fine at P5,000,000.00 which the Court of Appeals reduced to P500,000.00. Both
amounts are within the range provided for by law but the amount imposed by the
Court of Appeals, considering the quantity of the drugs involved, is more
appropriate.
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02070 dated 28 May
2007, sustaining the conviction of appellant Norberto Del Monte, a.k.a. Obet, for
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is
hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

2. G.R. No. 231989, September 04, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

On appeal is the February 23, 2017 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01280-
MIN, which affirmed the September 24, 2013 Decision2 of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Cagayan
de Oro City, in Criminal Case Nos. 2010-1073 and 2010-1074, finding accused-appellant Romy
Lim y Miranda (Lim) guilty of violating Sections 11 and 5, respectively, of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.)No.
9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

In an Information dated October 21, 2010, Lim was charged with illegal possession of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu), committed as follows:

That on or about October 19, 2010, at more or less 10:00 o'clock in the evening, at Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being
authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, criminally
and knowingly have in his possession, custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, with a total weight
of 0.02 gram, accused well-knowing that the substance recovered from his possession is a dangerous drug.

Contrary to, and in violation of, Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.3
On even date, Lim, together with his stepson, Eldie Gorres y Nave (Gorres), was also indicted for illegal sale
of shabu, committed as follows:
That on or about October 19, 2010, at more or less 10:00 o'clock in the evening, at Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating together and mutually helping one another, without being authorized by law to sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally and knowingly sell and/or offer for sale,
and give away to a PDEA Agent acting as poseur-buyer One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, with a total weight
of 0.02 gram, accused knowing the same to be a dangerous drug, in consideration of Five Hundred Pesos
(Php500.00) consisting of one piece five hundred peso bill, with Serial No. FZ386932, which was previously
marked and recorded for the purpose of the buy-bust operation.

Contrary to Section 5, Paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.4

In their arraignment, Lim and Gorres pleaded not guilty.5 They were detained in the city jail during the joint
trial of the cases.6

The prosecution presented Intelligence Officer (IO) 1 Albert Orellan, IO1 Nestle Carin, IO2 Vincent Orcales,
and Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Charity Caceres. Aside from both accused, Rubenia Gorres testified for the
defense.

Version of the Prosecution

Around 8:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, IO1 Orellan and his teammates were at Regional Office X of the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Based on a report of a confidential informant (CI) that a
certain "Romy" has been engaged in the sale of prohibited drugs in Zone 7, Cabina, Bonbon, Cagayan de
Oro City, they were directed by their Regional Director, Lt. Col. Edwin Layese, to gather for a buy-bust
operation. During the briefing, IO2 Orcales, IO1 Orellan, and IOl Carin were assigned as the team leader,
the arresting officer/back-up/evidence custodian, and the poseur-buyer, respectively. The team prepared a
P500.00 bill as buy-bust money (with its serial number entered in the PDEA blotter), the Coordination Form
for the nearest police station, and other related documents.

Using their service vehicle, the team left the regional office about 15 minutes before 10:00 p.m. and arrived
in the target area at 10:00 p.m., more or less. IO1 Carin and the CI alighted from the vehicle near the
comer leading to the house of "Romy," while IO1 Orellan and the other team members disembarked a few
meters after and positioned themselves in the area to observe. IO1 Carin and the CI turned at the comer
and stopped in front of a house. The CI knocked at the door and uttered, "ayo, nang Romy. " Gorres came
out and invited them to enter. Inside, Lim was sitting on the sofa while watching the television. When the CI
introduced IO1 Carin as a shabu buyer, Lim nodded and told Gorres to get one inside the bedroom. Gorres
stood up and did as instructed. After he came out, he handed a small medicine box to Lim, who then took
one piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic of shabu and gave it to IO1 Carin. In turn, IO1 Carin paid him
with the buy-bust money.

After examining the plastic sachet, IO1 Carin executed a missed call to IO1 Orellan, which was the pre-
arranged signal. The latter, with the rest of the team members, immediately rushed to Lim's house. When
they arrived, IO1 Carin and the CI were standing near the door. They then entered the house because the
gate was opened. IO1 Orellan declared that they were PDEA agents and informed Lim and Gorres, who were
visibly surprised, of their arrest for selling dangerous drug. They were ordered to put their hands on their
heads and to squat on the floor. IO1 Orellan recited the Miranda rights to them. Thereafter, IO1 Orellan
conducted a body search on both.

When he frisked Lim, no deadly weapon was found, but something was bulging in his pocket. IOl Orellan
ordered him to pull it out. Inside the pocket were the buy-bust money and a transparent rectangular plastic
box about 3x4 inches in size. They could see that it contained a plastic sachet of a white substance. As for
Gorres, no weapon or illegal drug was seized.

IO1 Orellan took into custody the P500.00 bill, the plastic box with the plastic sachet of white substance,
and a disposable lighter. IOl Carin turned over to him the plastic sachet that she bought from Lim. While in
the house, IO1 Orellan marked the two plastic sachets. Despite exerting efforts to secure the attendance of
the representative from the media and barangay officials, nobody arrived to witness the inventory-taking.

The buy-bust team brought Lim and Gorres to the PDEA Regional Office, with IO1 Orellan in possession of
the seized items. Upon arrival, they "booked" the two accused and prepared the letters requesting for the
laboratory examination on the drug evidence and for the drug test on the arrested suspects as well as the
documents for the filing of the case. Likewise, IO1 Orellan made the Inventory Receipt of the confiscated
items. It was not signed by Lim and Gorres. Also, there was no signature of an elected public official and the
representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media as witnesses. Pictures of both accused
and the evidence seized were taken.

The day after, IO1 Orellan and IO1 Carin delivered both accused and the drug specimens to Regional Crime
Laboratory Office 10. IO1 Orellan was in possession of the sachets of shabu from the regional office to the
crime lab. PSI Caceres, who was a Forensic Chemist, and Police Officer 2 (PO2) Bajas7personally received
the letter-requests and the two pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance. PSI Caceres got urine samples from Lim and Gorres and conducted screening and confirmatory
tests on them. Based on her examination, only Lim was found positive for the presence of shabu. The result
was shown in Chemistry Report No. DTCRIM-196 and 197-2010. With respect to the two sachets of white
crystalline substance, both were found to be positive ofshabu after a chromatographic examination was
conducted by PSI Caceres. Her findings were reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-228-2010. PSI Caceres,
likewise, put her own marking on the cellophane containing the two sachets of shabu. After that, she gave
them to the evidence custodian. As to the buy-bust money, the arresting team turned it over to the fiscal's
office during the inquest.

Version of the Defense

Around 10:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, Lim and Gorres were in their house in Cabina, Bonbon, Cagayan
de Oro City. Lim was sleeping in the bedroom, while Gorres was watching the television. When the latter
heard that somebody jumped over their gate, he stood up to verify. Before he could reach the door,
however, it was already forced opened by the repeated pulling and kicking of men in civilian clothing. They
entered the house, pointed their firearms at him, instructed him to keep still, boxed his chest, slapped his
ears, and handcuffed him. They inquired on where the shabu was, but he invoked his innocence. When they
asked the whereabouts of "Romy," he answered that he was sleeping inside the bedroom. So the men went
there and kicked the door open. Lim was then surprised as a gun was pointed at his head. He questioned
them on what was it all about, but he was told to keep quiet. The men let him and Gorres sit on a bench.
Lim was apprised of his Miranda rights. Thereafter, the two were brought to the PDEA Regional Office and
the crime laboratory. During the inquest proceedings, Lim admitted, albeit without the assistance of a
counsel, ownership of the two sachets of shabu because he was afraid that the police would imprison him.
Like Gorres, he was not involved in drugs at the time of his arrest. Unlike him, however, he was previously
arrested by the PDEA agents but was acquitted in the case. Both Lim and Gorres acknowledged that they did
not have any quarrel with the PDEA agents and that neither do they have grudges against them or vice-
versa.

Rubenia, Lim's live-in partner and the mother of Gorres, was at her sister's house in Pita, Pasil, Kauswagan
the night when the arrests were made. The following day, she returned home and noticed that the door was
opened and its lock was destroyed. She took pictures of the damage and offered the same as exhibits for
the defense, which the court admitted as part of her testimony.

RTC Ruling

After trial, the RTC handed a guilty verdict on Lim for illegal possession and sale of shabu and acquitted
Gorres for lack of sufficient evidence linking him as a conspirator. The fallo of the September 24, 2013
Decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds that:

1. In Criminal Case No. 2010-1073, accused ROMY LIM y MIRANDA is hereby found GUILTY of violating
Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging
from twelve [12] years and one [1] day to thirteen [13] years, and to pay Fine in the amount of Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos [P300,000.00] without subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of Fine;

2. In Criminal Case No. 2010-1074, accused ROMY LIM y MIRANDA is hereby found GUILTY of violating
Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and
to pay the Fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos [P500,000.00].

3. In Criminal Case No. 2010-1074, accused ELDIE GORRES y NAVE is hereby ACQUITTED of the offense
charged for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Warden of the BJMP
having custody of ELDIE GORRES y Nave, is hereby directed to immediately release him from detention
unless he is being charged of other crimes which will justify his continued incarceration.8
With regard to the illegal possession of a sachet of shabu, the RTC held that the weight of evidence favors
the positive testimony of IO1 Orellan over the feeble and uncorroborated denial of Lim. As to the sale
of shabu, it ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the identity of the buyer, the seller, the money
paid to the seller, and the delivery of the shabu. The testimony of IO1 Carin was viewed as simple,
straightforward and without any hesitation or prevarication as she detailed in a credible manner the buy-
bust transaction that occurred. Between the two conflicting versions that are poles apart, the RTC found the
prosecution evidence worthy of credence and no reason to disbelieve in the absence of an iota of malice, ill-
will, revenge or resentment preceding and pervading the arrest of Lim. On the chain of custody of evidence,
it was accepted with moral certainty that the PDEA operatives were able to preserve the integrity and
probative value of the seized items.

In so far as Gorres is concerned, the RTC opined that the evidence presented were not strong enough to
support the claim that there was conspiracy between him and Lim because it was insufficiently shown that
he knew what the box contained. It also noted Chemistry Report No. DTCRIM 196 & 197-2010, which
indicated that Gorres was "NEGATIVE" of the presence of any illicit drug based on his urine sample.

CA Ruling

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. It agreed with the finding of the trial court that the
prosecution adequately established all the elements of illegal sale of a dangerous drug as the collective
evidence presented during the trial showed that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted. Likewise, all the
elements of illegal possession of a dangerous drug was proven. Lim resorted to denial and could not present
any proof or justification that he was fully authorized by law to possess the same. The CA was unconvinced
with his contention that the prosecution failed to prove the identity and integrity of the seized prohibited
drugs. For the appellate court, it was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated drugs were not compromised. The witnesses for the prosecution were able to testify on every
link in the chain of custody, establishing the crucial link in the chain from the time the seized items were
first discovered until they were brought for examination and offered in evidence in court. Anent Lim's
defense of denial and frame-up, the CA did not appreciate the same due to lack of clear and convincing
evidence that the police officers were inspired by an improper motive. Instead. the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duty was applied.

Before Us, both Lim and the People manifested that they would no longer file a Supplemental Brief, taking
into account the thorough and substantial discussions of the issues in their respective appeal briefs before
the CA.9 Essentially, Lim maintains that the case records are bereft of evidence showing that the buy-bust
team followed the procedure mandated in Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

Our Ruling

The judgment of conviction is reversed and set aside, and Lim should be acquitted based on reasonable
doubt.

At the time of the commission of the crimes, the law applicable is R.A. No. 9165.10 Section 1(b) of
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements the law, defines chain of
custody as-
the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant
sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the
course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.11
The chain of custody rule is but a variation of the principle that real evidence must be authenticated prior to
its admission into evidence.12 To establish a chain of custody sufficient to make evidence admissible, the
proponent needs only to prove a rational basis from which to conclude that the evidence is what the party
claims it to be.13 In other words, in a criminal case, the prosecution must offer sufficient evidence from
which the trier of fact could reasonably believe that an item still is what the government claims it to
be.14 Specifically in the prosecution of illegal drugs, the well-established federal evidentiary rule in the
United States is that when the evidence is not readily identifiable and is susceptible to alteration by
tampering or contamination, courts require a more stringent foundation entailing a chain of custody of the
item with sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has either been
exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.15 This was adopted in Mallillin v.
People,16 where this Court also discussed how, ideally, the chain of custody of seized items should be
established:
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 into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the
next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same.17
Thus, the links in the chain of custody that must be established are: (1) the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of
the seized illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover of the illegal
drug by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover
and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.18

Seizure and marking of the illegal

drug as well as the turnover by the
apprehending officer to the
investigating officer

Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 states:

Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for
proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]19
Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations(IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates:
(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.20
On July 15, 2014, R.A. No. 10640 was approved to amend R.A. No. 9165. Among other modifications, it
essentially incorporated the saving clause contained in the IRR, thus:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, conduct a phyical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and
custody over said items.
In her Sponsorship Speech on Senate Bill No. 2273, which eventually became R.A. No. 10640, Senator
Grace Poe admitted that "while Section 21 was enshrined in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act to
safeguard the integrity of the evidence acquired and prevent planting of evidence, the application of said
section resulted in the ineffectiveness of the government's campaign to stop increasing drug addiction and
also, in the conflicting decisions of the courts."21 Specifically, she cited that "compliance with the rule on
witnesses during the physical inventory is difficult. For one, media representatives are not always available
in all comers of the Philippines, especially in more remote areas. For another, there were instances where
elected barangay officials themselves were involved in the punishable acts apprehended. "22 In addition,
"[t]he requirement that inventory is required to be done in police station is also very limiting. Most police
stations appeared to be far from locations where accused persons were apprehended."23

Similarly, Senator Vicente C. Sotto III manifested that in view of the substantial number of acquittals in
drug-related cases due to the varying interpretations of the prosecutors and the judges on Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165, there is a need for "certain adjustments so that we can plug the loopholes in our existing
law" and "ensure [its] standard implementation."24 In his Co-sponsorship Speech, he noted:
Numerous drug trafficking activities can be traced to operations of highly organized and powerful local and
international syndicates. The presence of such syndicates that have the resources and the capability to
mount a counter-assault to apprehending law enforcers makes the requirement of Section 21(a)
impracticable for law enforcers to comply with. It makes the place of seizure extremely unsafe for the proper
inventory and photograph of seized illegal drugs.
xxxx

Section 21(a) of RA 9165 needs to be amended to address the foregoing situation. We did not realize this in
2002 where the safety of the law enforcers and other persons required to be present in the inventory and
photography of seized illegal drugs and the preservation of the very existence of seized illegal drugs itself
are threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of drug syndicates at the place of seizure. The place
where the seized drugs may be inventoried and photographed has to include a location where the seized
drugs as well as the persons who are required to be present during the inventory and photograph are safe
and secure from extreme danger.

It is proposed that the physical inventory and taking of photographs of seized illegal drugs be allowed to be
conducted either in the place of seizure or at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending law
enforcers. The proposal will provide effective measures to ensure the integrity of seized illegal drugs since a
safe location makes it more probable for an inventory and photograph of seized illegal drugs to be properly
conducted, thereby reducing the incidents of dismissal of drug cases due to technicalities.

Non-observance of the prescribed procedures should not automatically mean that the seizure or confiscation
is invalid or illegal, as long as the law enforement officers could justify the same and could prove that the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are not tainted. This is the effect of the inclusion in
the proposal to amend the phrase "justifiable grounds." There are instances wherein there are no media
people or representatives from the DOJ available and the absence of these witnesses should not
automatically invalidate the drug operation conducted. Even the presence of a public local elected official
also is sometimes impossible especially if the elected official is afraid or scared.25
We have held that the immediate physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated items at the place of
arrest may be excused in instances when the safety and security of the apprehending officers and the
witnesses required by law or of the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as
retaliatory action of those who have the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault.26 The present
case is not one of those.

Here, IO1 Orellan took into custody the P500.00 bill, the plastic box with the plastic sachet of white
substance, and a disposable lighter. IO1 Carin also turned over to him the plastic sachet that she bought
from Lim. While in the house, IO1 Orellan marked the two plastic sachets. IO1 Orellan testified that he
immediately conducted the marking and physical inventory of the two sachets of shabu.27 To ensure that
they were not interchanged, he separately marked the item sold by Lim to IO1 Carin and the one that he
recovered from his possession upon body search as BB AEO 10-19-10 and AEO-RI 10-19-10, respectively,
with both bearing his initial/signature.28

Evident, however, is the absence of an elected public official and representatives of the DOJ and the media
to witness the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items.29 In fact, their signatures do not
appear in the Inventory Receipt.

The Court stressed in People v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro:30

The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down
in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in
such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived
deviations from the requirements of law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately
explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. It should take note that
the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly
state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the
integrity of the seized items. Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs
seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence.31
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and
photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their
safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate
retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected
official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest
efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official
within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no
fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention;
or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of
confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required
witnesses even before the offenders could escape.32
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v.
Ramos33requires:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items
inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient
effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v.
Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting
the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable
without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other
representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of
unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified
grounds for non- compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily
given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of
the accused until the time of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the
necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set
procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state
reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts
to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were
reasonable.34
In this case, IO1 Orellan testified that no members of the media and barangay officials arrived at the crime
scene because it was late at night and it was raining, making it unsafe for them to wait at Lim's house.35 IO2
Orcales similarly declared that the inventory was made in the PDEA office considering that it was late in the
evening and there were no available media representative and barangay officials despite their effort to
contact them.36 He admitted that there are times when they do not inform the barangay officials prior to
their operation as they. might leak the confidential information.37 We are of the view that these justifications
are unacceptable as there was no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law.

The testimony of team-leader IO2 Orcales negates any effort on the part of the buy-bust team to secure the
presence of a barangay official during the operation:
ATTY. DEMECILLO:

xxxx
Q x x x Before going to the house of the accused, why did you not contact
a barangay official to witness the operation?
A There are reasons why we do not inform a barangay official before our
operation, Sir.
Q Why?
A We do not contact them because we do not trust them. They might leak
our information.38
The prosecution likewise failed to explain why they did not secure the presence of a representative from the
Department the arresting officer, IO1 Orellan, stated in his Affidavit that they only tried to coordinate with
the barangay officials and the media, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to show that they
tried to contact a DOJ representative.

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses also failed to establish the details of an earnest effort to
coordinate with and secure presence of the required witnesses. They also failed to explain why the buy-bust
team felt "unsafe" in waiting for the representatives in Lim's house, considering that the team is composed
of at least ten (10) members, and the two accused were the only persons in the house.

It bears emphasis that the rule that strict adherence to the mandatory requirements of Section 21(1) of R.A.
No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR may be excused as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated items are properly preserved applies not just on arrest and/or seizure by reason of a legitimate
buy-bust operation but also on those lawfully made in air or sea port, detention cell or national penitentiary,
checkpoint, moving vehicle, local or international package/parcel/mail, or those by virtue of a consented
search, stop and frisk (Terry search), search incident to a lawful arrest, or application of plain view doctrine
where time is of the essence and the arrest and/or seizure is/are not planned, arranged or scheduled in
advance.
To conclude, judicial notice is taken of the fact that arrests and seizures related to illegal drugs are typically
made without a warrant; hence, subject to inquest proceedings. Relative thereto, Sections 1 (A.1.10) of the
Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations directs:
A.1.10. Any justification or explanation in cases of noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of
R.A. No. 9165, as amended, shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the
apprehending/seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized/confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for operating units other than the PDEA
pursuant to Section 86 (a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 shall be presented.39
While the above-quoted provision has been the rule, it appears that it has not been practiced in most cases
elevated before Us. Thus, in order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested docket any
orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases, the following should henceforth be enforced as a
mandatory policy:

1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance
with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.

2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the
justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.

3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits,

the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must
refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of
probable cause.

4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion
to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for
lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5,40
Rule 112, Rules of Court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the February 23, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
HC No. 01280-MIN, which affirmed the September 24, 2013 Decision of Regional Trial Court, Branch 25,
Cagayan de Oro City, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2010-1073 and 2010-1074, finding accused-appellant Romy
Lim y Miranda guilty of violating Sections 11 and 5, respectively, of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Romy Lim y Miranda is ACQUITTED on
reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully
held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm, B.E. Dujali,
Davao del Norte, for immediate implementation. The said Director is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court
within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Secretary of the Department of Justice, as well as to the
Head/Chief of the National Prosecution Service, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Public Attorney's
Office, the Philippine National Police, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the National Bureau of
Investigation, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and guidance. Likewise, the
Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to DISSEMINATE copies of this Decision to all trial courts,
including the Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED.
3. PDF

4. G.R. No. 213607

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
GLEN PIAD y BORI, RENATO VILLAROSA y PLATINO and NILO DA VIS y ARTIGA, Accused-
Appellants.
 DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

Subject of this appeal is the January 22, 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 04780, which affirmed the September 24, 2009 Joint Decision2 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 164, Pasig City (RTC), finding accused-appellant Glen Piad (Piad) guilty of violation of
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, as amended, in Criminal Case Nos.
14086-D and 14087-D; and accused-appellants Renato Villarosa (Villarosa), Agustin
Carbo (Carbo) and Nilo Davis (Davis) all guilty of violation of Sections 13 and 14, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 in Criminal Case Nos. 14088-D and 14089-D.

Accused-appellant Piad was charged in two (2) informations with the crimes of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs weighing 0.05 gram and illegal possession of dangerous drugs weighing 0.06
gram. While accused-appellant Villarosa, Carbo and Davis were charged in two (2) informations with
the crimes of illegal possession of dangerous drugs during a party weighing 0.03 gram and illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia during a party.

On August 8, 2005, Piad, Villarosa and Carbo were arraigned and they pleaded "Not Guilty." Davis,
however, was not arraigned because he had jumped bail.3

Pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued. On May 15, 2008, after Davis was arrested, he was
arraigned and, with the assistance of a counsel, pleaded "Not Guilty" to the charges against him.

Evidence of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented PO1 Larry Arevalo (PO1 Arevalo), PO1 Joseph Bayot (PO1
Bayot), Forensic Chemist PSI Stella Ebuen (PSI Ebuen), PO2 Clarence Nipales (PO2 Nipales), and
P/Insp. Donald Sabio (P/Insp. Sabio), as its witnesses. Their combined testimonies tended to prove
the following:

On April 23, 2005, the Special Operations Task Force, Pasig City Police Station, Pasig City,
received information from a confidential informant that a certain "Gamay," who was later identified as
Piad, was selling drugs along Ortigas Bridge, Pasig City. P/Insp. Sabio led the team, composed of
PO1 Arevalo, PO1 San Agustin, PO1 Bayot, PO1 Danilo Pacurib, PO2 Nipales, and PO1 Bibit, to
conduct a buy-bust operation. PO1 Arevalo was assigned as poseur-buyer and was provided with
the marked money - P150.00 in P100.00 and P50.00 peso bills. The Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) issued a certificate of coordination authorizing the team to proceed with the
operation.

Around 6:45 o’clock in the afternoon, the team arrived at the house of Piad in Lifehomes
Subdivision, Rosario, Pasig City. The back-up team took up position about 5 meters away from
Piad’s house. The confidential informant, with PO1 Arevalo, knocked on the door. When Piad
opened the door, the confidential informant introduced PO1 Arevalo as a buyer of shabu. Piad asked
PO1 Arevalo how much he wanted and the latter answered P150.00. Thereafter, Piad closed the
door and returned after a few seconds.

Upon opening the door again, PO1 Arevalo noticed that a group of male individuals were inside the
house. PO1 Arevalo handed to Piad the P150.00 marked money. In turn, Piad handed to PO1
Arevalo a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After the transaction was
completed, PO1 Arevalo immediately grabbed Piad’s right arm and introduced himself as a police
officer. Piad, however, struggled to free himself. PO1 Arevalo was eventually forced to enter the
house amidst the struggle. The back-up team followed suit and entered the house.

After arresting him, PO1 Arevalo asked Piad to bring out the marked money. Piad complied. PO1
Arevalo also asked him about the source of the drugs he sold. Piad pulled out a metal box from his
pocket and it revealed two (2) other plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO1
Arevalo marked all the items confiscated from Piad at the place of the arrest. Meanwhile, the back-
up team saw Villarosa, Davis and Carbo inside the house, sitting on the floor. They were surrounded
by three (3) sachets of white crystalline substance (one was heat sealed, while the other two were
unsealed), aluminum foil, a tooter and disposable lighters. The items were confiscated and were
marked by PO1 Bayot thereat.

The team brought Piad, Villarosa, Carbo, and Davis to the police headquarters. There, PO2 Pacurib,
PO1 Bayot and PO1 Arevalo executed a joint affidavit on their arrest. P/Insp. Sabio prepared the
requests for laboratory examination and drug test, which were brought by SPO1 Bayot to the
Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory. PSI Ebuen examined the confiscated items which tested
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Evidence of the Defense

The defense presented Piad, her sister Maria Zennette Piad (Maria), Villarosa, Carbo, and Davis as
its witnesses. They all testified to establish the following:

On April 23, 2005, Piad, Villarosa, Carbo, and Davis were celebrating a birthday party in the house
of Piad. Between 1:00 o’clock and 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, a tricycle and a vehicle stopped in
front of the house at Pilar Apartment, Ortigas Avenue, Pasig City. Two (2) armed men in civilian
clothes alighted from the vehicle, while another armed man alighted from the tricycle. All of them
suddenly entered the house of Piad, where the accused-appellants were having a drinking spree.
Piad, Villarosa, Carbo, and Davis were then ordered to lie down on the floor facing downwards.
Thereafter, the armed men searched the house. Subsequently, the accused-appellants were
handcuffed and brought to the police station. Piad claimed that the police officers were asking
P20,000.00 in exchange for their freedom; while Carbo claimed that the officers were demanding
P10,000.00 for their release.

The RTC Ruling

In its Joint Decision, dated September 24, 2009, the RTC found Piad guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, while Villarosa, Carbo and
Davis were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs during parties and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia during parties.

The RTC held that all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs were established because
PO1 Arevalo handed the marked money to Piad, who, in turn, handed the plastic sachet, which was
confirmed to contain 0.05 gram of shabu. The elements of the crime of illegal possession of drugs
were also established because two (2) more sachets of shabu weighing 0.06 gram were found in the
metal container inside the pocket of Piad immediately after his arrest.

As to Villarosa, Carbo and Davis, the RTC found that they committed the crime of illegal possession
of drugs and paraphernalia during a party because they were surrounded by plastic sachets
containing 0.03 gram of shabu and different drug paraphernalia when the team found them. The
elements of such crimes were clearly proven because they were in a proximate company of at least
two persons and without any legal authority to possess such illicit items.
The RTC did not give credence to the defense of denial and frame up put up by the accused
because their testimonies were inconsistent and self-serving. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:

WHEREFORE:

1. In Criminal Case No. 14086-D, the Court finds the accused Glen Piad alias Gamay guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, and hereby
imposes upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (Php500,000.00) with the accessory penalties provided for under Section 35 of said
R.A. 9165.

2. In Criminal Case No. 14087-D, the Court finds the accused Glen Piad alias Gamay guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165, and hereby
imposes upon him an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one
(1) day, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, as maximum, and a fine of Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00) with all the accessory penalties under the law.

3. In Criminal Case No. 14088-D, their guilt having been established beyond reasonable
doubt, accused Renato Villarosa y Platino, Agustin Carbo y Pavillon and Nilo Davis y Artiga
are hereby CONVICTED of violation of Section 13, Article II of R.A. 9165 for possessing
methylamphetamine hydrochloride weighing less than five grams in the proximate company
of at least two persons without legal authority and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment from Twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to Twenty
(20) years as maximum, and fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php400,000.00) each.

4. In Criminal Case No. 14089-D their guilt having been established beyond reasonable
doubt, accused Renato Villarosa y Platino, Agustin Carbo y Pavillon and Nilo Davis y Artiga
are hereby CONVICTED of violation of Section 14, Article II of R.A. 9165 for possessing
paraphernalia for dangerous drug in the proximate company of at least two persons without
legal authority and hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
from six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to four (4) years, as maximum, and fine of
Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) each.

HOWEVER, the four (4) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance or shabu (Exhs. H, H-
1, H-2, and J) and the illegal drug paraphernalia (Exhs. I, K, L, M, N, O, P) are hereby ordered
turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for destruction and proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.4

Aggrieved, Piad, Villarosa, Carbo, and Davis filed their notices of appeal.5 Subsequently, Carbo
withdrew his appeal,6 which was granted by the CA in its Resolution,7 dated October 21, 2011.

In their Appellants’ Brief,8 Piad, Villarosa and Davis argued that the chain of custody rule was not
complied with because PSI Ebuen did not testify on the condition of the confiscated items; that it was
not shown how the said items were brought before the court; and that no photograph was taken or
an inventory of the seized items was conducted.

In its Appellee’s Brief,9 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that Section 21 of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 required only substantial compliance as
long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the items were preserved; and that the testimony of the
police officers showed that the items were properly handled.
 The CA Ruling

In its assailed decision, dated January 22, 2014, the CA affirmed the conviction of Piad, Villarosa
and Davis. The CA held that all the elements of the crimes charged were indeed proven. As to the
chain of custody, the appellate court enumerated in detail how the prosecution was able to establish
its compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. As the chain of custody of the seized items was
sufficiently established not to have been broken, then the admissibility and credibility of the said
items were appreciated. The CA disposed the appeal in this wise:

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED. The RTC Decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 14086-D, 14087-
D, 14088-D and 14089-D, finding accused-appellants guilty of the crimes charged is hereby
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.10

Hence, this appeal.

In its Resolution,11 dated November 19, 2014, the Court required the parties to submit their
respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired.

In its Manifestation and Motion,12 dated January 8, 2015, the OSG manifested that it would no longer
submit a supplemental brief because its Brief for the Appellee, dated February 10, 2012, before the
CA had extensively and exhaustively discussed all the issues and arguments raised by the accused-
appellants.

In their Manifestation (in lieu of Supplemental Brief),13 dated February 4, 2015, the accused-
appellants manifested that they would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that no new
issues material to the case were raised.

In his Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Appeal,14 Villarosa signified his intention to withdraw his
appeal, adding that he understood the consequences of his action. In its Resolution,15 dated April 8,
2015, the Court granted Villarosa’s motion to withdraw his appeal.

Meanwhile, in a letter, dated January 13, 2015, the Bureau of Corrections informed the Court that
there was no record of confinement of Davis in all the prison facilities of the said Bureau. In the
same resolution, dated April 8, 2015, the Court required the Clerk of Court of the RTC to confirm the
confinement of Davis within ten (10) days from notice.

In her Manifestation/Compliance,16 dated May 29, 2015, the RTC Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Rachel
G. Matalang (Atty. Matalang), reported that Davis was never committed in any detention or prison
facility as he posted bail under a surety bond from Summit Guaranty and Insurance Company, Inc.
on May 6, 2005 during the pendency of the trial; that on November 12, 2009, during the
promulgation of the judgment, Davis and his counsel appeared before the trial court and manifested
that he would file a notice of appeal; that no warrant of arrest or commitment order was issued
against him; and that she could not confirm the confinement of Davis.

In its Resolution,17 dated July 8, 2015, the Court required Davis, the OSG and Summit Guaranty and
Insurance Company, Inc., to comment on the manifestation of Atty. Matalang.

In its Comment,18 dated October 16, 2015, the OSG asserted that when Davis jumped bail on August
8, 2005, the RTC should have immediately cancelled his bailbond; that he should have been placed
under custody after the promulgation of the judgment; and that he had become a fugitive from justice
who had lost his standing to appeal.

In its Manifestation,19 dated December 8, 2015, the Public Attorney’s Office informed the Court that,
despite earnest efforts to locate Davis and the surety company, they were not able to determine their
whereabouts; and that his wife informed the office that Davis had received the July 8, 2015
Resolution of the Court.

The Court’s Ruling

The appeal lacks merit and Davis has lost his right to appeal.

Elements of the crimes charged were duly established by the prosecution

After a review of the records of the case, the Court holds that Piad was properly convicted of the
crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It was proven that, on April 23, 2005, the police went to his
house to conduct a buy-bust operation; that PO1 Arevalo acted as the poseur-buyer; and that when
PO1 Arevalo gave the marked money to Piad, the latter handed to him a small plastic sachet. A
laboratory examination confirmed that the plastic sachet contained 0.05 gram of shabu. Clearly, all
the elements of the said crime were established.

The prosecution was also able to prove that Piad committed the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. When he was arrested in flagrante delicto, he was asked about the source of his
drugs. He then brought out a metal box, which contained two (2) more sachets. It was confirmed in a
laboratory test that these sachets contained 0.06 gram of shabu.

With respect to the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs during a party and the crime of
illegal possession of drug paraphernalia during a party, the prosecution also established that after
the arrest of Piad, the team found Villarosa, Carbo and Davis sitting on the floor and surrounded by
one (1) heat-sealed sachet and two (2) unsealed sachets. A laboratory report showed that these
sachets contained a total of 0.03 gram of shabu. The said persons were also found with an
aluminum foil, a tooter and disposable lighters, which were considered drug paraphernalia. As
correctly held by the RTC, the elements of such crimes were proven because there was a proximate
company of at least two (2) persons without any legal authority to possess the illicit items, citing
Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165.20

Substantial compliance with the Chain of Custody Rule

The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the
evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs
from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.21 Section 21(a) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

(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. (Emphasis supplied)

Evidently, the law requires "substantial" and not necessarily "perfect adherence" as long as it can be
proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.22

In this case, the CA meticulously assessed how the prosecution complied with the chain of custody
rule. When Piad was arrested, PO1 Arevalo marked the confiscated drugs at the crime scene.
Likewise, when Villarosa, Carbo and Davis were arrested, PO1 Bayot immediately marked the
seized items at the crime scene. The items were brought to the Pasig City Police Station where PO1
Bayot was designated as evidence custodian. P/Insp. Sabio then prepared the requests for
laboratory examination and drug test, which were brought by PO1 Bayot, together with the drugs, to
the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory. PSI Ebuen, received the confiscated items for
examination. The said items tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Based on the
foregoing, the Court is satisfied that there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule.

Davis lost his standing to appeal

Before conviction, bail is either a matter of right or of discretion. It is a matter of right when the
offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. If the offense charged is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
bail becomes a matter of discretion.23 In case bail is granted, the accused must appear whenever the
court requires his presence; otherwise, his bail shall be forfeited.24

When a person is finally convicted by the trial court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of
Court provides:

Sec. 5. Bail, When Discretionary. – Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The
application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of
appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court.

xxx

Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty
during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman. xxx

Here, Davis was charged with the crimes of illegal possession of dangerous drugs during a party
and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia during a party. Both offenses did not have a prescribed
1avvphi 1

penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, thus, bail was a matter of right.
Accordingly, Davis secured a surety bond with Summit Guaranty & Insurance Company, Inc. on May
6, 2005.

On August 8, 2005, Davis failed to appear before the RTC which considered him to have jumped
bail. At that point, the RTC should have cancelled the bailbond of Davis with Summit Guaranty &
Insurance Company, Inc. Although he was subsequently arrested and arraigned on May 15, 2008, it
is alarming that no record of Davis’ confinement in any detention facility was ever found.25
When the R TC promulgated its decision for conviction, Davis and his counsel were present in the
courtroom. Yet, they did not file any motion for bail pending appeal before the RTC or the CAI°
Nonetheless, any motion for bail pending appeal should have been denied because Davis violated
the conditions of his previous bail.26 Necessarily, as he previously jumped bail and no bail pending
appeal was secured, the R TC should have immediately issued a warrant of arrest against him.

In the same manner, the CA should not have entertained the appeal of Davis. Once an accused
escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail (as in this case), or flees to a foreign country, he
loses his standing in court. Unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is
deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.27 As no such surrender was made in
this case, in the eyes of the law, Davis is a fugitive from justice and, therefore, not entitled to seek
relief from the courts.

WHEREFORE, the Joint Decision, dated September 24, 2009, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
164, Pasig City in Criminal Case Nos. 14086-D, 14087-D, 14088-D and 14089-D is AFFIRMED in
toto.

For failure to submit to this Court's jurisdiction, the appeal filed by Nilo Davis y Artiga is
deemed ABANDONED and DISMISSED. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 164, Pasig City, is
hereby ORDERED to issue a warrant of arrest for the immediate apprehension and service of
sentence of Nilo Davis y Artiga.

SO ORDERED.

5.