f1

3Republic of tbe flbilippines

$>upreme QCourt
;ff-lllanila
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

G.R. No. 212196

Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
VELASCO, JR.,*
DEL CASTILLO,
MENDOZA, and
LEONEN,JJ.

- versus -

RAMIL DORIA DAHIL and

ROMMEL CASTRO y CARLOS,
Accused-Appellants.

Promulgated:

JAN 1 2 2015

:x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the September 27, 2013 Decision 1 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05707, which affirmed the July 17,
2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles City (RTC)
in Criminal Case Nos. DC 02-376, DC 02-377 and DC 02-378, finding
accused Ramil Doria Dahil (Dahil) and Rommel Castro (Castro) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of2002.
The Facts

On October 1, 2002, Dahil and Castro were charged in three (3)

separate Informations before the RTC. In Criminal Case No. DC 02-376,
Designated Acting member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, per Special Order No. 1910,
dated January 12, 2015.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican with Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias and Associate
Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring; rollo, pp. 1-19.
2
Penned by Judge Omar T. Viola; CA rollo. pp. 45-56.

DECISION

G.R. No. 212196

Dahil and Castro were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 for the sale of 26.8098 grams of marijuana in the Information
which reads:
That on or about the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City
of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating and mutually helping one another, did, then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or deliver to a
poseur buyer six (6) tea bags of dried marijuana fruiting tops
weighing TWENTY SIX GRAMS AND EIGHT THOUSAND
NINETY EIGHT TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (26.8098),
which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3

In Criminal Case No. DC 02-377, Dahil was charged with possession

of 20.6642 grams of marijuana in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165, in the Information which reads:
That on or about the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City
of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and
custody and control Five (5) tea bags of dried marijuana fruiting
tops weighing TWENTY GRAMS AND SIX THOUSAND SIX
HUNDRED FORTY TWO TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM
(20.6642), which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4

In Criminal Case No. DC 02-378, Castro was charged with possession

of 130.8286 grams of marijuana in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165, in the Information which reads:
That on or about the 29th day of September, 2002, in the
City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and
custody and control One (1) brick in form wrapped in masking tape
of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing ONE HUNDRED
THIRTY GRAMS and EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED
EIGHTY SIX TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (130.8286),
which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5

Records, p. 1.
Id. at 17.
5
Id. at 30.
4

DECISION

G.R. No. 212196

On November 14, 2002, Castro was arraigned and he pleaded not

guilty. Dahil, on the other hand, filed a motion for reinvestigation and his
arraignment was deferred. Trial ensued and the prosecution presented PO2
Arieltino Corpuz (PO2 Corpuz) and SPO1 Eliseo Licu (SPO1 Licu), as
witnesses.
On August 6, 2009, the RTC discovered that Dahil was never
arraigned through inadvertence. 6 The RTC informed the parties of the
situation and the defense counsel did not interpose any objection to the
reopening of the case and the arraignment of Dahil. The latter was then
arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the public prosecutor
manifested that he was adopting all the evidence already adduced.
Version of the Prosecution
Evidence of the prosecution tended to show that, for a couple of
weeks, the agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA),
Region 3, conducted surveillance and casing operations relative to the
information they received that a certain alias Buddy and alias Mel were
trafficking dried marijuana in TB Pavilion, Marisol Subdivision, Barangay
Ninoy Aquino, Angeles City. On September 29, 2002, the Chief of PDEA
formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. The team was composed of
four (4) police officers, namely, Sergeant Juanito dela Cruz (Sergeant dela
Cruz), as team leader; and PO2 Corpuz, SPO1 Licu and PO2 Javiar, as
members. PO2 Corpuz was designated as the poseur-buyer while SPO1 Licu
was assigned as his back-up.
The team proceeded to the target place at around 8:00 oclock in the
evening. Upon arriving, PO2 Corpuz together with the informant went to the
house of Dahil which was within the TB Pavillon compound. When PO2
Corpuz and the informant were in front of the house, they met Dahil and
Castro. The informant then introduced PO2 Corpuz as the buyer of
marijuana. Dahil asked PO2 Corpuz how much would he be buying and the
latter answered that he would buy 200.00 worth of marijuana. At this
juncture, Dahil took out from his pocket six (6) plastic sachets of marijuana
and handed them to PO2 Corpuz. After checking the items, PO2 Corpuz
handed two (2) 100.00 marked bills to Castro.

Id. at 219.

DECISION

G.R. No. 212196

Immediately thereafter, PO2 Cruz took off his cap to signal that the
sale had been consummated. The rest of the buy-bust team then rushed to
their location and arrested Castro and Dahil. PO2 Corpuz frisked Dahil and
recovered from his possession another five (5) plastic sachets containing
marijuana while SPO1 Licu searched the person of Castro and confiscated
from him one (1) brick of suspected marijuana.
Both Castro and Dahil, together with the confiscated drugs, were then
brought by the buy-bust team to the PDEA office. There, the seized items
were marked by PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu. First, the six (6) plastic
sachets of marijuana which were sold by Dahil to PO2 Corpuz were marked
with A-1 to A-6 and with letters RDRC, ADGC and EML.
Second, the five (5) plastic sachets recovered from Dahil were marked with
B-1 to B-5 and with letters RDRC, ADGC and EML. Finally, the
marijuana brick confiscated from Castro was marked C-RDRC. Sergeant
dela Cruz then prepared the request for laboratory examination, affidavits of
arrest and other pertinent documents. An inventory of the seized items7 was
also prepared which was signed by Kagawad Pamintuan. Thereafter, PO2
Corpuz brought the confiscated drugs to the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory for examination, which subsequently yielded positive
results for marijuana.
The prosecution and defense entered into stipulation as to the essential
contents of the prospective testimony of the forensic chemist, to wit:
1. That a laboratory examination request was prepared by PO3
Dela Cruz;
2. That said letter request for laboratory examination was sent
to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Olivas, San Fernando,
Pampanga;
3. That Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran David is a forensic chemist;
4. That said forensic chemist conducted an examination on the
substance subject of the letter request with qualification that
said request was not subscribed or under oath and that the
forensic chemist has no personal knowledge as from whom
and where said substance was taken;
5. That the result of the laboratory examination is embodied in
Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002; and
6. The findings and conclusion thereof.8

7
8

Id. at 16.
CA rollo, p. 49.

DECISION

G.R. No. 212196

The prosecution was ordered to formally offer its evidence on March

7, 2007.9 After much delay, the public prosecutor was finally able to orally
submit his formal offer of exhibits after almost two years, or on January 6,
2009.10 He offered the following documentary evidence: (1) Joint Affidavit
of Arrest, (2) Custodial Investigation Report, (3) Photocopy of the marked
money, (4) Brown envelope containing the subject illegal drugs, (5)
Inventory of Property Seized, (6) Laboratory Examination Request, and (7)
Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002.
Version of the Defense
In his defense, Dahil claimed that on September 29, 2002, a tricycle
driver came looking for him after he had arrived home. He saw the tricycle
driver with another man already waiting for him. He was then asked by the
unknown man whether he knew a certain Buddy in their place. He answered
that there were many persons named Buddy. Suddenly, persons alighted
from the vehicles parked in front of his house and dragged him into one of
the vehicles. He was brought to Clark Air Base and was charged with illegal
selling and possession of marijuana.
For his part, Castro testified that on September 29, 2002, he was on 4th
Street of Marisol, Barangay Ninoy Aquino, Angeles City, watching a game
of chess when he was approached by some men who asked if he knew a
certain Boy residing at Hardian Extension. He then replied that he did not
know the said person and then the men ordered him to board a vehicle and
brought him to Clark Air Base where he was charged with illegal possession
of marijuana.
RTC Ruling
In its Decision,11 dated July 17, 2012, the RTC found both accused
liable for violating Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165, and imposed upon
them the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000.00 each for
the crime of illegal sale of marijuana; Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day,
as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum,
and a fine of 300,000.00 each for the crime of illegal possession of
marijuana.

Records, p. 176.
Id. at 208.
11
CA rollo, pp. 45-56.
10

DECISION

G.R. No. 212196

The RTC was convinced that the prosecution was able to prove the
case of selling and possession of illegal drugs against the accused. All the
elements of the crimes were established. To the trial court, the evidence
proved that PO2 Corpuz bought marijuana from Dahil. The latter examined
the marijuana purchased and then handed the marked money to Castro.
The marked money was lost in the custody of the police officers, but
the RTC ruled that the same was not fatal considering that a photocopy of
the marked money was presented and identified by the arresting officers.12 It
did not give credence to the defense of frame-up by Dahil and Castro
explaining that it could easily be concocted with no supporting proof.
CA Ruling
The accused then appealed to the CA. In their Brief for the AccusedAppellants,13 they argued that there were irregularities on the preservation of
the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal items seized from them. The
prosecution witnesses exhibited gross disregard of the procedural safeguards
which generated clouds of doubts as to the identity of the seized items
presented in evidence. 14
In its Brief for the Appellee,15 the OSG contended that the prosecution
was able to prove all the elements of the crime of illegal sale and possession
of marijuana. As to the chain of custody procedure, it insists that the
prosecution witnesses were able to account for the series of events that
transpired, from the time the buy-bust operation was conducted until the
time the items were presented in court.
The CA denied the appeal in its Decision, dated September 27, 2013.
In its view, the prosecution was able to establish that the illegal sale of
marijuana actually took place. As could be gleaned from the testimony of
PO2 Corpuz, there was an actual exchange as Dahil took out from his pocket
six (6) sachets containing marijuana, while PO2 Corpuz handled out the two
(2) 100.00 marked bills, after they agreed to transact 200.00 worth of the
12

Id. at 54.
Id. at 25-43.
14
Id. at 41.
15
Id. at 75-87.
13

DECISION

G.R. No. 212196

illegal drug.16 The charge of illegal possession of marijuana, was also thus
established by the prosecution. 17 Another five (5) plastic sachets of
marijuana were recovered from Dahils possession while one (1) brick of
marijuana from Castros possession.18
It was likewise proven that the illicit drugs confiscated from the
accused during the buy-bust operation were the same drugs presented before
the RTC. As testified to by PO2 Corpuz, the six (6) plastic sachets of
marijuana, which were sold by Dahil to PO2 Corpuz were marked A-1 to
A-6 and with letters RDRC, ADGC and EML, the five (5) plastic
sachets recovered in the possession of Dahil were marked B-1 to B-5
and with the initials ADGC and EML, while the marijuana brick
confiscated from Castro was marked C-RDRC.19
It was also held that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of
custody. PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu testified that the said drugs were
marked at the police station. An inventory of the seized items was made as
shown by the Inventory Report of Property Seized, duly signed by Kagawad
Pamintuan. The Request for Laboratory Examination revealed that the
confiscated drugs were the same items submitted to the PNP crime
laboratory for examination. On the other hand, Chemistry Report No. D0518-2002 showed that the specimen gave positive results to the test of
marijuana. The accused failed to show that the confiscated marijuana items
were tampered with, or switched, before they were delivered to the crime
laboratory for examination.20
Hence, this appeal.
This appeal involves the sole issue of whether or not the law
enforcement officers substantially complied with the chain of custody
procedure required by R.A. No. 9165.
The Courts Ruling
Let it be underscored that appeal in criminal cases throws the whole
case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite
and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or

16

Rollo, p. 10.
Id. at 9-11.
18
Id. at 13.
19
Id. at 12.
20
Id. at 15-16.
17

DECISION

G.R. No. 212196

unassigned.21 Considering that what is at stake here is no less than the liberty
of the accused, this Court has meticulously and thoroughly reviewed and
examined the records of the case and finds that there is merit in the appeal.
The Court holds that that there was no unbroken chain of custody and that
the prosecution failed to establish the very corpus delicti of the crime
charged.
A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of
operation has been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal
transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust
operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the
framers of the law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of
which is its use as a tool for extortion. 22
The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is
material if not indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale and
possession of dangerous drugs. As such, the identity of the dangerous drugs
should be established beyond doubt by showing that the items offered in
court were the same substances bought during the buy-bust operation. This
rigorous requirement, known under R.A. No. 9165 as the chain of custody,
performs the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the
identity of the evidence are removed.23 In People v. Catalan,24 the Court said:
To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the Prosecution must prove the
corpus delicti. That proof is vital to a judgment of conviction. On
the other hand, the Prosecution does not comply with the
indispensable requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165 when the dangerous drugs are missing but
also when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the
seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of
the evidence presented in court.

Although R.A. No. 9165 does not define the meaning of chain of
custody, Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of
2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, explains the said term as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or
plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
21

People v. Balagat, 604 Phil. 529, 534 (2009).

People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416, 426-427 (2009).
23
People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014.
24
G.R. No. 189330, November 28, 2012, 686 SCRA 631, 644.
22

DECISION

G.R. No. 212196

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.

As a means of ensuring the establishment of the chain of custody,

Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 specifies that:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

Specifically, Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and

Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 enumerates the procedures to be
observed by the apprehending officers to confirm the chain of custody, to
wit:
xxx
(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;
xxx

DECISION

10

G.R. No. 212196

The strict procedure

under Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165 was not
complied with.
Although the prosecution offered in evidence the Inventory of the
Property Seized signed by the arresting officers and Kagawad Pamintuan,
the procedures provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not observed.
The said provision requires the apprehending team, after seizure and
confiscation, to immediately (1) conduct a physically inventory; and (2)
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 DOJ, and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and
be given a copy thereof.
First, the inventory of the property was not immediately conducted
after seizure and confiscation as it was only done at the police station.
Notably, Article II, Section 21(a) of the IRR allows the inventory to be done
at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures. In this case,
however, the prosecution did not even claim that the PDEA Office Region 3
was the nearest office from TB Pavilion where the drugs were seized. The
prosecution also failed to give sufficient justification for the delayed conduct
of the inventory. PO2 Corpuz testified, to wit:
Q: What documents did you ask Kgd. Abel Pamintuan to sign?
A: The inventory of the property seized, sir.
Q: And did he sign that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where was he when he signed that?
A: In our office, sir.
Q: Already in your office?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who prepared the inventory of the property seized?
A: Our investigator, sir.
Q: And that was prepared while you were already at your office?
A: Yes, sir, because we did not bring with us the material or
equipment for the preparation of the documents so, we invited
him to our office.25
25

TSN, April 29, 2004, pp. 8-9.

DECISION

11

G.R. No. 212196

PO2 Corpuz gave the flimsy excuse that they failed to immediately
conduct an inventory because they did not bring with them the material or
equipment for the preparation of the documents. Such explanation is
unacceptable considering that they conducted a surveillance on the target for
a couple of weeks.26 They should have been prepared with their equipment
even before the buy-bust operation took place.
Second, there is doubt as to the identity of the person who prepared
the Inventory of Property Seized. According to the CA decision, it was
Sergeant dela Cruz who prepared the said document. 27 PO2 Cruz on the
other hand, testified that it was their investigator who prepared the
document while SPO1 Licus testimony was that a certain SPO4
Jamisolamin was their investigator.28
Third, there were conflicting claims on whether the seized items were
photographed in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected
public official. During the cross-examination, PO2 Corpuz testified:
Q: After you arrested Ramil Dahil, did you conduct the inventory of
the alleged seized items?
A: Yes, sir (sic).
Q: Where did you conduct the inventory?
A: In our office, maam
Q: Were pictures taken on the alleged seized items together with
Ramil Dahil?
A: No, maam.29
[Emphases supplied]

SPO1 Licu when cross-examined on the same point, testified this was:
Q: After you conducted the alleged buy-bust operation, did you
conduct an inventory of the alleged seized items?
A: Yes, maam.
Q: Were the accused assisted by counsel at the time you conduct
the inventory?
A: No, maam.
Q: Were pictures taken on them including the alleged seized items?
26

Records, p. 10.
Rollo, p. 6.
28
TSN, August 17, 2006, p. 25.
29
TSN, May 5, 2006, p. 20.
27

DECISION

12

G.R. No. 212196

A: Pictures were taken on the accused, maam.

[Emphasis supplied]

In other words, when questioned on the conduct of the inventory, PO2

Corpuz testified that no pictures of the seized items were taken while SPO1
Licu said that pictures of the accused were taken. From the vague statements
of the police officers, the Court doubts that photographs of the alleged drugs
were indeed taken. The records are bereft of any document showing the
photos of the seized items. The Court notes that SPO1 Licu could have
misunderstood the question because he answered that pictures were taken
on the accused when the question referred to photographs of the drugs and
not of the accused.
The prosecution failed to
establish that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized
items were preserved.
Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish the
rigorous requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, jurisprudence dictates
that substantial compliance is sufficient. Failure to strictly comply with the
law does not necessarily render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items
seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. 30 The issue of non-compliance
with the said section is not of admissibility, but of weight to be given on the
evidence.31 Moreover, Section 21 of the IRR 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 are preserved as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.32
To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are preserved, the proper chain of custody of the seized items must be
shown. The Court explained in People v. Malillin33 how the chain of custody
or movement of the seized evidence should be maintained and why this must
be shown by evidence, viz:
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
30

People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil. 520, 530 (2009).

People v. Domado, 635 Phil. 78, 93 (2010).
32
People v. Salvidar, G.R. No. 207664, June 5, 2014.
33
Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
31

DECISION

13

G.R. No. 212196

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.

In People v. Kamad,34 the Court identified the links that the

prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to
be as follows: 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 by the
forensic chemist to the court.
First link: Marking of the
Drugs Recovered from the
Accused by the Apprehending
Officer
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized
drugs or other related items immediately after they have been seized from
the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the
poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking
after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that
the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers
of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the
evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other
similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused
until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus,
preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.35
It must be noted that marking is not found in R.A. No. 9165 and is
different from the inventory-taking and photography under Section 21 of the
said law. Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, however, this Court
had consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the

34
35

624 Phil. 289, 304-306 (2010).

People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 176350, August 10, 2011, 655 SCRA 279, 289-290.

DECISION

14

G.R. No. 212196

seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus
delicti.36
In the present case, PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu claimed that they had
placed their initials on the seized items. They, however, gave little
information on how they actually did the marking. It is clear, nonetheless,
that the marking was not immediately done at the place of seizure, and the
markings were only placed at the police station based on the testimony of
PO2 Corpuz, to wit:
Q: So, after recovering all those marijuana bricks and plastic
sachets of marijuana and the marked money from the accused,
what else did you do?
A: We brought the two (2) suspects and the evidence and marked
money to our office, sir.
Q: So, in your office, what happened there?
A: Our investigator prepared the necessary documents, sir, the
request for crime lab examination, joint affidavit of arrest,
booking sheet, and all other documents necessary for the filing
of the case against the two (2), sir.
xxx
Q: What about the marijuana, subject of the deal, and the one which
you confiscated from the accused, what did you do with those?
A: Before sending them to Olivas, we placed our markings, sir.37

Hence, from the place of the seizure to the PDEA Office Region 3, the
seized items were not marked. It could not, therefore, be determined how the
unmarked drugs were handled. The Court must conduct guesswork on how
the seized drugs were transported and who took custody of them while in
transit. Evidently, the alteration of the seized items was a possibility absent
their immediate marking thereof.
Still, there are cases when the chain of a custody rule is relaxed such
as when the marking of the seized items is allowed to be undertaken at the
police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the
presence of the accused in illegal drugs cases. 38 Even a less stringent
application of the requirement, however, will not suffice to sustain the
conviction of the accused in this case. Aside from the fact that the police
officers did not immediately place their markings on the seized marijuana

36

People v. Sabdula, G.R. No. 184758, April 21, 2014.

TSN, April 29, 2004, pp. 9-10.
38
People v. Resurrecion, supra note 30, at 531.
37

DECISION

15

G.R. No. 212196

upon their arrival at the PDEA Office, there was also no showing that the
markings were made in the presence of the accused.
PO2 Corpuz testified that they only placed their markings on the
drugs when they were about to send them to Camp Olivas for forensic
examination. This damaging testimony was corroborated by the
documentary evidence offered by the prosecution. The following documents
were made at the PDEA Office: (1) Joint Affidavit of Arrest, (2) Custodial
Investigation Report, (3) Inventory of Property Seized, and (4) Laboratory
Examination Request. Glaringly, only the Laboratory Examination Request
cited the markings on the seized drugs. Thus, it could only mean that when
the other documents were being prepared, the seized drugs had not been
marked and the police officers did not have basis for identifying them.
Considering that the seized drugs were to be used for different criminal
charges, it was imperative for the police officers to properly mark them at
the earliest possible opportunity. Here, they failed in such a simple and
critical task. The seized drugs were prone to mix-up at the PDEA Office
itself because of the delayed markings.
Worse, not all of the seized drugs were properly marked. As noted by
the RTC, Exhibit B-3 RC RD,39 Exhibit A-5 RC RD and Exhibit A-6 RD
RC 40 did not have the initials of the apprehending officers on the back.
Bearing in mind the importance of marking the seized items, these lapses in
the procedure are too conspicuous and cannot be ignored. They placed
uncertainty as to the identity of the corpus delicti from the moment of
seizure until it was belatedly marked at the PDEA Office.
Similarly, in People v. Garcia, 41 the Court considered the belated
marking of the seized drug by the apprehending officer in acquitting the
accused in the case. The officer testified that he marked the confiscated
items only after he had returned to the police station. Such admission
showed that the marking was not done immediately after the seizure of the
items, but after the lapse of a significant intervening time.
Second Link: Turnover of the
Seized
Drugs
by
the
Apprehending Officer to the
Investigating Officer
The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized
drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Usually, the
39

TSN, August 17, 2006, p. 18.

Id. at 22.
41
Supra note 22.
40

DECISION

16

G.R. No. 212196

police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a

supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police crime
laboratory for testing. 42 This is a necessary step in the chain of custody
because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the proper
investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing
criminal case. Certainly, the investigating officer must have possession of
the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required documents.
The investigator in this case was a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin. 43
Surprisingly, there was no testimony from the witnesses as to the turnover of
the seized items to SPO4 Jamisolamin. It is highly improbable for an
investigator in a drug-related case to effectively perform his work without
having custody of the seized items. Again, the case of the prosecution is
forcing this Court to resort to guesswork as to whether PO2 Corpuz and
SPO1 Licu gave the seized drugs to SPO4 Jamisolamin as the investigating
officer or they had custody of the marijuana all night while SPO4
Jamisolamin was conducting his investigation on the same items.
In People v. Remigio, 44 the Court noted the failure of the police
officers to establish the chain of custody as the apprehending officer did not
transfer the seized items to the investigating officer. The apprehending
officer kept the alleged shabu from the time of confiscation until the time he
transferred them to the forensic chemist. The deviation from the links in the
chain of custody led to the acquittal of the accused in the said case.
Third Link: Turnover by the
Investigating Officer of the
Illegal Drugs to the Forensic
Chemist
From the investigating officer, the illegal drug is delivered to the
forensic chemist. Once the seized drugs arrive at the forensic laboratory, it
will be the laboratory technician who will test and verify the nature of the
substance. In this case, it was only during his cross-examination that PO2
Corpuz provided some information on the delivery of the seized drugs to
Camp Olivas, to wit:

42

People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366, December 13, 2010, 637 SCRA 791, 812.
Records, p. 11.
44
People v. Remigio, G.R. No. 189277, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 336, 353.
43

DECISION

17

G.R. No. 212196

Q: How about the alleged marijuana, you stated that the same was
brought to the crime laboratory, who brought the same to the
crime lab?
A: Me and my back-up, maam.
Q: When did you bring the marijuana to the crime lab for
examination?
A: I think it was the following day, maam.45

As can be gleaned from the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, very little

detail was offered on how the seized marijuana was handled and transferred
from the PDEA Office in Angeles City to the crime laboratory in Camp
Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga. PO2 Corpuz kept possession of the seized
drugs overnight without giving details on the safekeeping of the items. The
most palpable deficiency of the testimony would be the lack of information
as to who received the subject drugs in Camp Olivas.
Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran, the forensic chemist who conducted the
tests on the subject drugs, did not appear in court despite the numerous
subpoenas sent to her.46 Instead, the prosecution and the defense agreed to
stipulate on the essential points of her proffered testimony. Regrettably, the
stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist failed to shed light as to who
received the subject drugs in Camp Olivas. One of the stipulations was that
said forensic chemist conducted an examination on the substance of the
letter-request with qualification that said request was not subscribed or under
oath and that forensic chemist has no personal knowledge as from whom and
where said substance was taken.47 This bolsters the fact that the forensic
chemist had no knowledge as to who received the seized marijuana at the
crime laboratory.
The recent case of People v. Beran 48 involved irregularities in the
third link. The police officer, who both served as apprehending and
investigating officer, claimed that he personally took the drug to the
laboratory for testing, but there was no showing who received the drug from
him. The records also showed that he submitted the sachet to the laboratory
only on the next day, without explaining how he preserved his exclusive
custody thereof overnight. All those facts raised serious doubt that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item have not been fatally
compromised. Hence, the accused in the said case was also acquitted.

45

TSN, May 25, 2006, p. 22.

Records, pp. 90, 102, 105, 110, 112, 115.
47
CA rollo, p. 49.
48
People v. Beran, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014.
46

DECISION

18

G.R. No. 212196

Fourth Link: Turnover of the

Marked Illegal Drug Seized by
the Forensic Chemist to the
Court.
The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the
forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case.
No testimonial or documentary evidence was given whatsoever as to how
the drugs were kept while in the custody of the forensic chemist until it was
transferred to the court. The forensic chemist should have personally
testified on the safekeeping of the drugs but the parties resorted to a general
stipulation of her testimony. Although several subpoenae were sent to the
forensic chemist, only a brown envelope containing the seized drugs arrived
in court.49 Sadly, instead of focusing on the essential links in the chain of
custody, the prosecutor propounded questions concerning the location of the
misplaced marked money, which was not even indispensable in the criminal
case.
The case of People v. Gutierrez50 also had inadequate stipulations as
to the testimony of the forensic chemist. No explanation was given regarding
the custody of the seized drug in the interim - from the time it was turned
over to the investigator up to its turnover for laboratory examination. The
records of the said case did not show what happened to the allegedly seized
shabu between the turnover by the investigator to the chemist and its
presentation in court. Thus, since there was no showing that precautions
were taken to ensure that there was no change in the condition of that object
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession thereof,
the accused therein was likewise acquitted.
In view of all the foregoing, the Court can only conclude that, indeed,
there was no compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 because of the inadequate physical inventory and the lack of
photography of the marijuana allegedly confiscated from Dahil and Castro.
No explanation was offered for the non-observance of the rule. The
prosecution cannot apply the saving mechanism of Section 21 of the IRR of
R.A. No. 9165 because it miserably failed to prove that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The four links required
to establish the proper chain of custody were breached with irregularity and
lapses.

49
50

Rollo, p. 6.
614 Phil. 285 (2009).

DECISION

19

G.R. No. 212196

The Court cannot either agree with the CA that the evidentiary rule
involving the presumption of regularity of the performance of official duties
could apply in favor of the police officers. The regularity of the performance
of duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the police officers
because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. 51 The
presumption stands when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt
the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance,
the presumption of regularity will never be stronger than the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will
defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused to be presumed
innocent. 52
Given the procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the
identity of the seized marijuana that the prosecution presented as evidence
before the Court. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully prove the elements
of the crime charged, creating a reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of
the accused. 53
For said reason, there is no need to discuss the specific defenses raised
by the accused.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The September 27, 2013
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05707 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-appellants, Ramil Doria Dahil
and Rommel Castro y Carlos, are ACQUITTED of the crime charged
against them and ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless
they are being held for some other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to
implement this decision and to inform this Court of the date of the actual
release from confinement of the accused within five (5) days from receipt of
copy.
SO ORDERED.

ENDOZA

51
52

53

People v. Catalan, supra note 24, at 647.

p eople v. Mendoza, supra note 23.
People v. Garcia, supra note 22, at 436.

G.R. No. 212196

20

DECISION

WE CONCUR:

Associate Justice
Chairperson

4L

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

~c.?f~~~~
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

"
/.
/

MARVIC M.V.F.
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
'

~/
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

DECISION

21

G.R. No. 212196

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice