G.R. No.

205821 October 1, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
1
GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE GUZMAN, Accused-appellant.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

"Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of custody of
seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. This is especially true when only a miniscule amount of
dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the accused."1

This resolves an appeal from a conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

On September 15, 2004, accused-appellant Garry dela Cruz (dela Cruz) was charged with illegal sale and
illegal possession of dangerous drugs in two separate informations,2 as follows:

Criminal Case No. 5450 (20920)

VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, A[R]TICLE (sic) II K OF THE

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002

(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165)

That on or about September 14, 2004, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport,
distribute or give away to another any dangerous drugs, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, SELL AND DELIVER to PO1 WILFREDO BOBON y TARROZA, a member of the PNP, who acted as
buyer, one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic pack containing white crystalline substance having a
total weight of 0.0120 gram which when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the
tests for the presence of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu) knowing the same to be a
dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 5451 (20921)

VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF THE

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002

(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165)

That on or about September 14, 2004, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession and under his custody and control six (6) pieces heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance, each weighing as follows: 1)
0.0135 gram; 2) 0.0183 gram; 3) 0.0542 gram; 4) 0.0197 gram; 5) 0.0100 [gram]; and 6) 0.0128 gram or a
total of 0.1285 gram; which when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the tests for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) knowing same to be a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3 (Citations omitted)

As alleged by the prosecution, dela Cruz was arrested in a buy-bust operation. The buy-bust operation was
allegedly conducted after a civilian informant (the informant) tipped the Zamboanga City Police Office that a
certain "Gary" was selling illegal drugs at the parking area for buses behind Food Mart, Governor Lim Street,
Sangali, Bunguioa, Zamboanga City (the target area).4
2
The buy-bust operation team included PO1 Wilfredo Bobon (PO1 Bobon), as poseur-buyer, and SPO1
Roberto Roca (SPO1 Roca), as back-up arresting officer. It was agreed that "PO1 Bobon would remove his
bull cap once the sale of illegal drugs was [consummated]." The buy-bust team prepared a _100.00 bill with
serial number KM 776896 as marked money.5

At around 11:00 a.m. of September 14, 2004, the buy-bust operation team, accompanied by the informant,
went to the target area. The informant initially brokered the sale of shabu. It was PO1 Bobon who handed
the marked money to dela Cruz in exchange for one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet of suspected shabu. After
which, he removed his bull cap. SPO1 Roca then arrested dela Cruz.6

Upon frisking dela Cruz, PO1 Bobon supposedly recovered six (6) more heat-sealed sachets of suspected
shabu. PO1 Bobon placed the sachet he purchased from dela Cruz in his right pocket and the six (6) other
sachets in his left pocket. SPO1 Roca recovered the marked _100.00 bill.7

Dela Cruz and the seven (7) sachets seized from him were then brought to the Zamboanga City Police
Station.8 There, PO1 Bobon taped the sachets. He then marked the sachet from his right pocket with his
initials, "WB."9 He marked the sachets from his left pocket as "WB-1," "WB-2," "WB-3," "WB-4," "WB-5," and
"WB-6."10

On the same day, the seven (7) sachets were turned over to SPO1 Federico Lindo, Jr., the investigating
officer, who prepared the request for laboratory examination. Subsequently, the tests yielded positive
results for shabu.11

During trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses PO1 Bobon, SPO1 Roca, and forensic chemist Police
Inspector Melvin L. Manuel. The sole witness presented for the defense was dela Cruz himself.12

For his part, dela Cruz acknowledged that on the morning of September 14, 2004, he was in the target area.
As he was leaving the comfort room, someone embraced him from behind, while another poked a gun at
him. He was then handcuffed and brought to an L-300 van which was parked in front of Food Mart. Inside
the van, he was asked if he was Jing-Jong, alias Jong-Jong. Despite his denials, he was brought to the police
station. It was when he was already detained that he learned that he was charged for violation of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.13

On August 19, 2010, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Zamboanga City, convicted dela Cruz for violating
Article II, Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and sentenced him to life
imprisonment and a fine of _500,000.00. He was also convicted for violating Article II, Section 11 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and sentenced to 12 years and one day up to 14 years
imprisonment and a fine of _300,000.00. The dispositive portion of this decision reads:

WHEREFORE, this Court finds:

1. In Criminal Case No. 5450 (20920), accused GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE GUZMAN guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (₱500,000) without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency;

2. In Criminal Case No. 5451 (20921), accused GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE GUZMAN guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of TWELVE
YEARS AND ONE DAY to FOURTEEN YEARS of imprisonment and pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (₱300,000) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The methamphetamine hydrochloride used as evidence in these cases are hereby ordered confiscated to be
turned over to the proper authorities for disposition.
3
SO ORDERED.14

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, dela Cruz assailed the prosecution’s failure to establish the chain of
custody of the seized sachets of shabu. He also assailed the validity of the buy-bust operation and the
prosecution’s failure to present the informant in court.15

On May 31, 2012, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision16 affirming dela Cruz’ conviction in toto.
Thereafter, dela Cruz filed his notice of appeal.17

In the resolution18 dated April 15, 2013, this court noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and
informed the parties that they may file their supplemental briefs.

On June 6, 2013, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a manifestation and motion,19 on behalf of the
People of the Philippines, noting that it would no longer file a supplemental brief as the brief it filed with the
Court of Appeals had adequately addressed the arguments and issues raised by dela Cruz.

On August 7, 2013, dela Cruz filed a manifestation20 indicating that he, too, would no longer file a
supplemental brief and that he was instead re-pleading, adopting, and reiterating the defenses and
arguments in the brief he filed before the Court of Appeals.

For resolution is the issue of whether dela Cruz’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and
11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was established. Subsumed in the resolution of this
issue are the issues raised by dela Cruz in the brief he filed with the Court of Appeals, foremost of which is
whether the prosecution was able to establish compliance with the chain of custody requirements under
Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The elements that must be established to sustain convictions for illegal sale and illegal possession of
dangerous drugs are settled:

In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1)
proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the
illicit drug as evidence.

On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the
accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such
possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in
possession of the drug. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond
reasonable doubt.21

With respect to the element of corpus delicti, Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 provides for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized,
and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Particularly on the matter of custody before a criminal
case is filed, Section 21, as amended, provides:

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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after
4
seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical 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.

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

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic
laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That
when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and
essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory
examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be
examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued
immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification;

....

The significance of complying with Section 21’s requirements cannot be overemphasized. Non-compliance is
tantamount to failure in establishing identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the offenses of illegal
sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. By failing to establish an element of these offenses, non-
compliance will, thus, engender the acquittal of an accused.

We reiterate the extensive discussion on this matter from our recent decision in People v. Holgado:22

As this court declared in People v. Morales, "failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA
9165 implie[s] a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus
delicti."23 It "produce[s] doubts as to the origins of the [seized paraphernalia]."24

The significance of ensuring the integrity of drugs and drug paraphernalia in prosecutions under Republic Act
No. 9165 is discussed in People v. Belocura:25

Worse, the Prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug that constituted the corpus
delicti itself. The omission naturally raises grave doubt about any search being actually conducted and
warrants the suspicion that the prohibited drugs were planted evidence.

In every criminal prosecution for possession of illegal drugs, the Prosecution must account for the custody of
the incriminating evidence from the moment of seizure and confiscation until the moment it is offered in
evidence. That account goes to the weight of evidence. It is not enough that the evidence offered has
probative value on the issues, for the evidence must also be sufficiently connected to and tied with the facts
in issue. The evidence is not relevant merely because it is available but that it has an actual connection with
the transaction involved and with the parties thereto. This is the reason why authentication and laying a
foundation for the introduction of evidence are important.26 (Emphasis supplied)

In Malilin v. People,27 this court explained that the exactitude required by Section 21 goes into the very
5
nature of narcotics as the subject of prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165:

Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is
small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar
to people in their daily lives. Graham vs. State positively acknowledged this danger. In that case where a
substance later analyzed as heroin—was handled by two police officers prior to examination who however
did not testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it was in their possession
—was excluded from the prosecution evidence, the court pointing out that the white powder seized could
have been indeed heroin or it could have been sugar or baking powder. It ruled that unless the state can
show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came
into the possession of police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition,
testimony of the state as to the laboratory’s findings is inadmissible.

A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are
subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close
its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the
same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases—by
accident or otherwise—in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for
laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases
involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain
of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has
either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.28 (Emphasis supplied)

Compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21, therefore, ensures the integrity
of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia in four (4) respects: first, the
nature of the substances or items seized; second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of the substances or items
seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident allegedly causing their seizure;
and fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the person/s alleged to have been in possession
of or peddling them. Compliance with this requirement forecloses opportunities for planting, contaminating,
or tampering of evidence in any manner.

By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti, non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a failure to
establish an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that this non-compliance
suffices as a ground for acquittal. As this court stated in People v. Lorenzo:29

In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a
persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with
moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the
substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must
likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.30
(Emphasis supplied)

The prosecution’s sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized drugs and drug
paraphernalia will not secure a conviction. Not even the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties will suffice. In fact, whatever presumption there is as to the regularity of the manner by which
officers took and maintained custody of the seized items is "negated."31 Republic Act No. 9165 requires
compliance with Section 21.
Even the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not actually comply with the
requirements of Section 21 does not suffice. In People v. Magat,32 for instance, this court had occasion to
emphasize the inadequacy of merely marking the items supposedly seized: "Marking of the seized drugs
alone by the law enforcers is not enough to comply with the clear and unequivocal procedures prescribed in
6
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165."33

The exactitude which the state requires in handling seized narcotics and drug paraphernalia is bolstered by
the amendments made to Section 21 by Republic Act No. 10640. Section 21(1), as amended, now includes
the following proviso, thereby making it even more stringent than as originally worded:

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:

In People v. Nandi,34 this court explained that four (4) links "should be established in the chain of custody of
the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court."35

In Nandi, where the prosecution failed to show how the seized items were handled following the actual
seizure and, thereafter, turned over for examination, this court held that the accused must be acquitted:

After a closer look, the Court finds that the linkages in the chain of custody of the subject item were not
clearly established. As can be gleaned from his forequoted testimony, PO1 Collado failed to provide
informative details on how the subject shabu was handled immediately after the seizure. He just claimed
that the item was handed to him by the accused in the course of the transaction and, thereafter, he handed
it to the investigator.

There is no evidence either on how the item was stored, preserved, labeled, and recorded. PO1 Collado
could not even provide the court with the name of the investigator. He admitted that he was not present
when it was delivered to the crime laboratory. It was Forensic Chemist Bernardino M. Banac, Jr. who
identified the person who delivered the specimen to the crime laboratory. He disclosed that he received the
specimen from one PO1 Cuadra, who was not even a member of the buy-bust team. Per their record, PO1
Cuadra delivered the letter-request with the attached seized item to the CPD Crime Laboratory Office where
a certain PO2 Semacio recorded it and turned it over to the Chemistry Section.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the considered view that chain of custody of the illicit drug seized
was compromised. Hence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be applied in
this case.

Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the obvious
evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot
be made in this case. A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made in the context
of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure
in the performance thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law
enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is
irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts
were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

With the chain of custody in serious question, the Court cannot gloss over the argument of the accused
regarding the weight of the seized drug. The standard procedure is that after the confiscation of the
dangerous substance, it is brought to the crime laboratory for a series of tests. The result thereof becomes
one of the bases of the charge to be filed.36 (Citations omitted)

As Holgado emphasized, "[e]ven the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not
actually comply with the requirements of Section 21 does not suffice."37 In People v. Garcia,38 this court
7
noted that the mere marking of seized paraphernalia, unsupported by a physical inventory and taking of
photographs, and in the absence of the persons required by Section 21 to be present, does not suffice:

Thus, other than the markings made by PO1 Garcia and the police investigator (whose identity was not
disclosed), no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the
circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules. We observe that while there was
testimony with respect to the marking of the seized items at the police station, no mention whatsoever was
made on whether the marking had been done in the presence of Ruiz or his representatives. There was
likewise no mention that any representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected
official had been present during this inventory, or that any of these people had been required to sign the
copies of the inventory.39 (Citations omitted)

In this case, the Regional Trial Court acknowledged that no physical inventory of the seized items was
conducted.40 Similarly, there is nothing in the records to show that the seized items were photographed in
the manner required by Section 21. Likewise, none of the persons required by Section 21 to be present (or
their possible substitutes) have been shown to be present.

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals assert that dela Cruz must nevertheless be convicted as "it
had been clearly established that the identity of the items were [sic] properly preserved."41 They anchor this
conclusion on PO1 Bobon’s having supposedly kept the seized sachets in his own pockets: one (1) sachet in
his right pocket and six (6) sachets in his left pocket.

The Court of Appeals reasons:

We found no gap in the prosecution’s presentation of the chain of custody. There was a seizure of seven (7)
heat-sealed sachets of shabu as a result of a valid buy-bust operation. PO1 Bobon and SPO1 Roca testified
how the seizure was conducted. PO1 Bobon was able to identify the shabu which were involved in the illegal
sale vis-a-vis the one involved in illegal possession because he knowingly put them in different pockets. The
seized drugs were marked at the police station which was only 200 meters away from the area where the
arrest was made. The identity of these seized items were secured as PO1 Bobon placed tapes on the
respective heat-sealed sachets of shabu and marked them with his initials which he later identified in
court.42 (Citation omitted)

The circumstance of PO1 Bobon keeping narcotics in his own pockets precisely underscores the importance
of strictly complying with Section 21. His subsequent identification in open court of the items coming out of
his own pockets is self-serving.

The prosecution effectively admits that from the moment of the supposed buy-bust operation until the
seized items’ turnover for examination, these items had been in the sole possession of a police officer. In
fact, not only had they been in his possession, they had been in such close proximity to him that they had
been nowhere else but in his own pockets.

Keeping one of the seized items in his right pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a doubtful and suspicious
way of ensuring the integrity of the items. Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ finding that PO1 Bobon took the
necessary precautions, we find his actions reckless, if not dubious.

Even without referring to the strict requirements of Section 21, common sense dictates that a single police
officer’s act of bodily-keeping the item(s) which is at the crux of offenses penalized under the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is fraught with dangers. One need not engage in a meticulous
counter-checking with the requirements of Section 21 to view with distrust the items coming out of PO1
Bobon’s pockets. That the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both failed to see through this and
fell — hook, line, and sinker — for PO1 Bobon’s avowals is mind-boggling.
8
Moreover, PO1 Bobon did so without even offering the slightest justification for dispensing with the
requirements of Section 21.

Section 21, paragraph 1, of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, includes a proviso to the effect
that "noncompliance of (sic) 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." Plainly, the prosecution has not shown
that –on September 14, 2004, when dela Cruz was arrested and the sachets supposedly seized and marked –
there were "justifiable grounds" for dispensing with compliance with Section 21. All that the prosecution has
done is insist on its self-serving assertion that the integrity of the seized sachets has, despite all its lapses,
nevertheless been preserved.

Apart from the blatantly irregular handling by PO1 Bobon of the seven (7) sachets, it is also admitted that no
physical inventory and taking of photographs in the presence of dela Cruz or of any of the other persons
specified by Section 21 were conducted.43

As in People v. Garcia, the mere marking of seized paraphernalia, will not suffice to sustain a conviction in
this case.

The miniscule amount of narcotics supposedly seized from dela Cruz amplifies the doubts on their
integrity.1âwphi1 In total, the seven (7) sachets supposedly contained all of 0.1405 gram of shabu. This
quantity is so miniscule it amounts to little more than 7% of the weight of a five-centavo coin (1.9 grams) or
a one-centavo coin (2.0 grams).

As we have discussed in People v. Holgado:

While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance
underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In Malilin v. People, this court said that
"the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small
and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to
people in their daily lives."

....

Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of Republic Act
No. 9165. All details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced narrative must be
scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof
beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs. These can be readily
planted and tampered. . . . 44 (Citations omitted)

As the integrity of the corpus delicti of the crimes for which dela Cruz is charged has not been established, it
follows that there is no basis for finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is proper that dela Cruz be
acquitted.

We close by hearkening to the same words with which we ended in Holgado:

It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving
small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish."
We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they
are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of
drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy
is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all
these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu
9
under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be
distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We
stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels.45

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated May 31, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 00869-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Garry dela Cruz y de Guzman is hereby
ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered
immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for
immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this court
within five days from receipt of this decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished the
Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drugs
Enforcement Agency for their information.

The Regional Trial Court is directed to tum over the seized sachets of shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board
for destruction in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 188976 June 29, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JAKAR MAPAN LE y SUBA and RODEL DEL CASTILLO y SACRUZ, Accused-Appellants.

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

This is an appeal from the March 31, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03019
entitled People of the Philippines v. Jakar Mapan Le y Suba alias "Ankaw" and Rodel Del Castillo y Sacruz alias
"Rodel" which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 154 in Pasig City in Criminal
Case No. 13644-D for Violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26 of Republic Act (RA) 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Accused-appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Facts

An Information charged accused-appellants as follows:

On or about July 27, 2004, 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 give away
to PO1 Richard N. Noble, a police poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, containing
two (2) grams of white crystalline substance, which were found positive to the test for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.1
During their arraignment, accused-appellants both gave a negative plea.
10
At the trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: PO2 Richard Noble (PO2 Noble) and PO1
Melvin Mendoza (PO1 Mendoza). The defense offered the testimonies of accused-appellants and Norhaya
Mapan Le, Mapan Le’s daughter.

Version of the Prosecution

According to PO2 Noble, the Pasig City Police Station received information at around 9:00 on the evening of
July 27, 2004 from a confidential informant (CI) that a certain "Ankar" and "Rodel" were selling shabu in
Bolante, Palatiw in Pasig City. He noticed that the two men tagged in the information were included in their
drug watch list. Their office thus prepared a pre-operation report (Exhibit "B") and coordinated with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) (Exhibit "B-1"). Police Inspector Castillo organized a buy-
operation and designated PO2 Noble as the poseur-buyer. PO2 Noble placed his initials "RN" on the buy-bust
money (Exhibits "E" and "F") consisting of two (2) Php100 bills. PO2 Noble, PO1 Mendoza and their
colleagues then headed for the target area in two (2) unmarked vehicles. They reached the place at around
9:50pm and walked to the place of "Ankar" and "Rodel." Once the latter were spotted, the CI talked to
"Ankar" and introduced PO2 Noble as a regular shabu buyer. When "Ankar" asked PO2 Noble how much he
wanted to purchase, he replied by giving "Ankar" the Php200 marked money. "Ankar" then instructed
"Rodel" to give PO2 Noble a plastic sachet. PO2 Noble examined the contents of the plastic bag and
proceeded to scratch his head to mark the consummation of the drug transaction. Upon seeing the pre-
arranged signal from PO2 Noble, back-up operative PO2 Mendoza rushed to the scene. PO2 Noble arrested
"Rodel" while PO2 Mendoza arrested "Ankar," who attempted to flee. PO2 Mendoza retrieved the buy-bust
money from "Ankar" while PO2 Noble marked the plastic sachet received from "Rodel."2

PO1 Melvin Mendoza corroborated PO2 Noble’s testimony. He testified that he followed PO2 Noble and the
CI at a distance of around 10 to 15 meters. He observed the men talking with "Ankar," with "Rodel" handing
something to "Ankar" afterwards. "Ankar" then handed the object to PO2 Noble. PO2 Mendoza did not see
what the object was from where he was situated. When he saw PO2 Noble brush his hair with his hand he
joined PO2 Noble in arresting "Rodel" and "Ankar," with PO2 Noble informing the men of their violation. PO2
Noble then placed markings on the plastic sachet that was sold. The men were then brought to the police
station for further investigation.3 The two were subsequently identified as Jakar "Ankar" Mapan Le (Le) and
Rodel Del Castillo (Del Castillo).

Version of the Defense

On the witness stand, Le testified that he was a vendor of slippers and socks at the Pasig Market. On the
evening of July 27, 2004, he was inside his house with his family. While they were watching television
someone suddenly kicked the door of their house. Four male strangers then entered without warning and
frisked him. They found nothing on his person. He asked if they had a warrant and they answered that they
did not. Still they brought him outside and boarded him in a red car. He was told that they were taking him
to their office.4

According to Le, Del Castillo5 lived five houses away from him. He only knew Del Castillo by face and only
found out his name when he arrived at the Parancillo Police Station, where Del Castillo was in handcuffs. Le
recounted that a police officer named Noble demanded PhP 10,000 from Mapan for his freedom. Le
answered that he did not have money, to which Noble said, "tutuluyan kita." Le was jailed when he could
not comply with Noble’s demand.

Del Castillo testified that on the night of the buy-bust operation, he was on his way home from work as a
kargador in the market. He stopped by a deep-well pump in front of Le’s house in order to wash his hands.
Several police officers approached him while he was washing his hands. He was asked if he knew who Ankar
was. He replied in the negative. Afterwards, he noticed that three of the police officers went inside Le’s
Castillo back and asked him if he knew Le. He replied that he did not. He was boarded in a car, with Le
following suit three minutes later. The two were brought to Rizal Medical Center where they were made to
sign a document. They were not brought to the crime laboratory for drug testing but were instead escorted
11
house while the rest remained outside. He left soon after. After taking only a few steps, PO2 Noble called Del

to the Parancillo police station.61avvphi1

Del Castillo narrated that the police insisted he knew who Le was. He denied this and was brought to a
bathroom where he was beaten up.7

Norhaya Mapan Le (Norhaya) corroborated her father’s testimony. She said she was watching television with
her parents when four men barged into their house on July 27, 2007 at around 10 to 11pm. They were
armed men in civilian clothing who announced that they were police officers. They instructed her family not
to move. The men searched their house and did not find anything. She saw them frisk her father and
handcuff him. Later, their neighbors told them that the police officers were from Parancillo and that they
should follow her father to the police station. 8

At the police station, Norhaya and her family begged Police Officer Noble to set her father free because he
was innocent. The policeman instructed them to pay Php10,000.00 for the release of Le. When they told
Noble they could not produce the amount, they were advised to return when they had the payment.9

In addition, Norhaya testified that she did not know her father’s co-accused Rodel Del Castillo prior to the
alleged buy-bust operation. She told the court that her father left their house on July 27, 2004 to sell slippers
and socks at the market and returned home before 8pm and did not leave their house anymore.10

The Ruling of the Trial Court

Finding all of the elements of a valid buy-bust operation present, the RTC convicted accused-appellants of
the crime charged. The trial court also noted that the requirements prescribed by RA 9165 on coordination
with PDEA were complied with. The defense’s claim of extortion was not given credence as it was found to
be a vain attempt by accused-appellants to show motive on the part of the police officers even if the former
had no visible means of income.

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision11 reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in finding the accused JAKAR MAPAN LE
and RODEL DEL CASTILLO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165
(sale of dangerous drugs) and each of them is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT. Each
of them is also ordered to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00. x x x

SO ORDERED.

Accused-appellants appealed their conviction before the CA. They averred that their guilt was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt. There were material inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution
witnesses’ testimonies, such as PO2 Noble and PO1 Mendoza’s version of how the buy-bust operation was
conducted. The defense also emphasized that the prosecution failed to (1) present the person who delivered
the subject shabu to the crime laboratory, thus creating a missing link in the chain of custody; and (2) make
an inventory and take photographs of the confiscated shabu in the presence of accused-appellants, a media
representative, and an elected public official as required by RA 9165.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA12 affirmed the appealed RTC decision. The alleged inconsistent statements made by prosecution
witnesses were not material enough to overturn the trial court’s findings and did not delve into the elements
of the crime charged. As to the chain of custody rule, the appellate court ruled that what was most
important was that the prosecution showed that the identity and integrity of the shabu was preserved.

Accused-appellants seasonably filed their Notice of Appeal of the appellate court’s Decision.
12
On, September 23, 2009, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs, if they so desire. The
parties manifested that they were adopting their arguments contained in their respective briefs earlier filed
with the Court.

The Issue

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.

Reiterating their arguments, accused-appellants maintain that the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies on
how the buy-bust operation occurred were completely different from each other. The non-presentation of
the marked money the team used is also questioned. The prosecution’s evidence is likewise attacked for
having a missing link in the chain of custody of over the subject shabu and for non-compliance with Sec. 21
of RA 9165 as well as its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). The defense further argues that no
justifiable reason was offered for such non-compliance.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on the other hand, argues on behalf of the People that the
prosecution was able to prove the identity of the seized shabu. They label as immaterial whether it was Le or
Castillo who gave the shabu to PO2 Noble. In their view, the non-presentation of the marked money does
not create a hiatus in the evidence of the prosecution as the sale of the shabu was adequately proven and
the shabu itself was presented before the court. In addition, they point out that the photocopies of the
marked money were presented, identified, and not objected to.

On the matter of extortion, the OSG contends that no proof was shown by the defense to overcome the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties enjoyed by the buy-bust operation team’s
members.

The Ruling of This Court

We affirm accused-appellant’s conviction.

Elements of the Crime

Accused-appellants are charged with violating Section 5 of RA 9165, which reads:

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.

The essential elements that must be established in prosecuting a case of illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor.13 What is material is proof that the transaction actually took place,
along with the presentation in court of the illegal substance which constitutes the corpus delicti of the
crime.14
from poseur-buyer PO2 Noble in exchange for a plastic sachet handed to him by Del Castillo. PO2 Noble 13
In the instant case, the aforementioned elements were established by the prosecution. Le received Php200

wrote his initials on the seized item. The plastic sachet’s contents were then subjected to a laboratory
examination and tested positive for shabu. The alleged inconsistencies cited by the defense do not materially
affect the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. As the OSG correctly pointed out, the inconsistencies
were too trivial to merit consideration. What is important is that the elements of the crime were established
by both the oral and object evidence presented in court.

Accused-appellants’ argument on the failure to present the marked money in court is not only without merit
but baseless. Two (2) One hundred peso (Php100) bills were presented as evidence as the buy-bust money
used and marked as Exhibits "E" and "F." Moreover, the presentation of buy-bust money is not required by
law or jurisprudence. Its non-presentation is not fatal to the case for the prosecution. The marked money
used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable but merely corroborative in nature.15

Chain of Custody

We likewise affirm the findings of both lower courts on the issue of chain of custody. What is important is
the preservation of the identity and integrity of the seized shabu.

RA 9165 provides the procedure for buy-bust operations:

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

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

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

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the
forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject
item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time
frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of
dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification
shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four
(24) hours;

(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular
inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with
the destruction or burning of 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
14
and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on
the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the offender:
Provided, That those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or
recycled for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly weighed and
recorded is retained;

(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject
item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to
the court having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a
minimum quantity as determined by the Board;

(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the
above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender
or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her
counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question,
the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney's office to represent the former;

(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the representative sample/s was
presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of the final termination of the
case and, in turn, shall request the court for leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the PDEA
for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same; xxx

To summarize, we ruled in People v. Camad,16 that there are links that must be established in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation, viz: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

In the instant case, the links in the chain are the following:

(1) At the scene of the buy-bust operation, Castillo handed the plastic sachet to PO2 Noble, who immediately
marked it with his initials;

(2) The plastic sachet was brought to the laboratory for examination per Request for Laboratory Examination
(Exhibit "A") signed by Police Inspector Earl B. Castillo;

(3) According to Physical Science Report No. D-0670-04E (Exhibit "B") prepared by Forensic Chemist
Lourdeliza Gural Cejes, the two (2) grams inside the seized sachet tested positive for shabu.

Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from
him inadmissible.17 The requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR are not inflexible. 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."18 The prosecution in this case was able to
preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of the shabu seized from accused-appellants. The records
show that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of RA 9165. We thus hold that the chain
of custody requirements were met in the instant case.

Presumption of Regularity

Likewise undeserving of credence is the allegation of frame-up. Accused-appellants did not present any
evidence of extortion on the part of the buy-bust team. Neither were they able to show any effort in
correcting a wrong supposedly committed against them by filing the appropriate administrative and criminal
 15
charges against the police officers who arrested them. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the
members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their
duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.19 We therefore uphold the
presumption that the members of the buy bust team performed their duties in a regular manner. Their
testimonies as prosecution witnesses are entitled to full faith and credit.

Penalty Imposed

RA 9165 prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from PhP 500,000 to PhP 10
million for a violation of Sec. 5 of the same law. Having been sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of PhP 1 million each, accused-appellants’ imposed penalties should be affirmed as these are within the
range provided by law.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the CA’s March 31, 2009 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
03019 is AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against accused-appellants.

SO ORDERED.