PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

JOSE CLARA Y BUHAIN

FACTS: This is an appeal filed by herein accused Joel Clara y Buhain (Joel) from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
affirming the decision of conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City tor violation of Section 5, Article II
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act virtualaw l
(P03 Ramos) narrated that he acted as a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation conducted by their office, the District AntiIllegal Drug Special Task Group (DAID-SOTG) of Quezon City on 12 September 2005.
Inside the courtroom, PO3 Ramos identified Joel as the one involved in the illegal transaction. He also identified the small
plastic sachet of shabu as the subject of the illegal transaction through the marking he placed on it. He testified that he
brought the plastic sachet containing the specimen to the crime laboratory for examination where it was tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, as certified by the examining Forensic Chemist Engr. Leonard M. Jabonillo (Forensic
Chemist Jabonillo) of Central Police District Crime Laboratory in his Chemistry Report. library
However, during the trial, inconsistencies and contradictions were made by each of the police officers who presented in
court as prosecution witnesses as they narrated the details of the buy-bust operation.
Accused Joel denied any involvement in the buy-bust operation. On cross examination, Joel was also inconsistent in
portions of his testimony. library
Joel was eventually charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and was found guilty of the offense charged because the
accused directly dealt with the poseur buyer and participated in all the stages of the illegal sale.
CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
ISSUE: WON the conviction of the accused is valid

HELD: NO! Inspite of the imperfect narration of events by the accused Joel, we are constrained to render a judgment of
acquittal due to the lapses of the prosecution that led to its failure to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused committed the crime.
In order to successfully prosecute an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must
first be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
It is basic in criminal prosecutions that an accused is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven
beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has the burden to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the
quantum of evidence required.

CASTRO vs. People

VELASCO, JR., J.:
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, accused-appellant Cesar D. Castro (Castro) assails the January 6, 2010 Decision [1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31793, as effectively reiterated in its August 10, 2010 Resolution, [2] which affirmed in toto the July 11, 2008
Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16 in Laoag City, in Criminal Case No. 10784-16. The RTC found Castro guilty of violating Sec.
11, Art. II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Castro was charged with possession of shabu in an Information dated July 26, 2003, the inculpatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 25th day of July 2003 in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the herein accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody,
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, a dangerous drug, contained in one (1) plastic sachet, weighing more or
less 0.1 gram including the plastic sachet, without any license or authority, in violation of the aforecited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]

When arraigned, Castro pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.

At the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense jointly stipulated as to the identity of the accused, such that whenever the name
Cesar Castro is mentioned, the reference is to the accused thus charged in the information. They likewise stipulated on the issue of whether or not the
accused, when arrested on July 25, 2003, was in possession of shabu and, if so, whether he was authorized.
Trial on the merits then ensued.
The trial court summarized the states evidence, as follows:
PO1 JONEL MANGAPIT testified that: On July 25, 2003, he was assigned in the Intelligence and Operation Section of Laoag City
Police Station at Barangay I, Laoag City. At about 4:45, SPO2 Nestor Felipe informed them that he received a phone call from a
concerned citizen that a male person wearing green t-shirt and brown maong bought shabu near the Iglesia Ni Cristo. Police
Superintendent Pagdilao dispatched a team of police officers composed of PO1 Inspector Aldos, SPO3 Lagundino, SPO2 Bal and
himself to verify the veracity of the report. They rode on the black Toyota Corolla and proceeded to the place. (The Iglesia Ni Kristo is
farther west of the Police station of Laoag City at Brgy. I, along Rizal Street). Upon reaching the Iglesia Ni Cristo church, they saw a
male person with the green description. They know his person as one of the drug personalities. He was walking towards the east with
his right hand placed on his pocket. They were about ten (10) meters away from the accused. They approached him. The accused panic
upon recognizing them as policemen and brought something [out] from his pocket and threw it at his back. The things thrown by the
accused were plastic sachets of shabu, lighter and a coin. They arrested the accused and he was informed of his constitutional rights.
He could not answer when he was asked whether or not he had authority to possess illegal drug. They brought the accused to the
police station and he was indorsed to Investigation Section. The plastic sachet of shabu was turned over to the Evidence Custodian,
SPO2 Loreto Ancheta. x x x Police Officers Aldos and Bal also saw the accused threw something in the manner he described. It was
SPO2 Bal who picked up the plastic sachet of shabu. The accused was facing east and their vehicle was facing west. The accused was
walking. He took hold of the accused. The thing that was thrown was 1 meter away from the back of the accused. From his experience
he knew that the content of the plastic sachet thrown by the accused was shabu. (TSN April 13, 2004, pp. 2-10) On additional
examination, he confirmed that he saw the accused making a motion of bringing out from his front pants pocket his hands causing the
dropping of an item. He likewise confirmed that the item dropped was a sachet of shabu and it is the same item that was picked up by
SPO2 Bal. He received the sachet of shabu from Officer Bal and turned over the same to the evidence custodian five to ten minutes
after the operation. SPO3 Lagundino and Senior Insp. Aldos were present when Officer Bal turned over the shabu to him. He cannot
remember if there was a Post Operation Report. (TSN, January 13, 2006, pp. 13-17)
SPO2 ERNESTO BAL testified that: In the afternoon of July 25, 2003, the complaint desk officer received a telephone call informing
that a male person wearing a green t-shirt and a brown maong pants had just bought a shabu at Brgy. I near the Iglesia Ni Cristo. The
Chief of Police x x x dispatched them to verify the information. They rode in an unmarked vehicle x x x. When they were at the Rizal
Street, they saw a male person that matched the description given coming from the house of the Valeriano family which is southwest
of Iglesia Ni Cristo. From a distance of about ten (10) to twelve (12) meters, they saw the male person place his right hand into his
right side pocket. When they got near the male person, they noticed him removing his right hand from his pocket and he threw
something backward. They were more or less four (4) meters away from the accused. PO1 Mangapit alighted and took hold of the
accused. He also alighted, went to PO1 Mangapit who told him to pick-up the thing which the accused threw. He picked-up a plastic
sachet which contained white crystalline substance. He asked the accused if he has license or permit to possess shabu. Accused Cesar
Castro did not answer. They brought the accused together with the plastic sachet to the police station and they delivered the plastic
sachet with crystalline substance to the evidence custodian. (TSN, December 2, 2004, pp. 2-7) On cross examination, [he stated that] x
x x When he picked up the plastic sachet it was more or less half-meter from the accused. He heard PO1 Mangapit inform the accused
of his constitutional rights. (ibid, pp. 11-24) The distance between the police station and the Iglesia Ni Cristo is more or less 200
meters. (TSN, March 17, 2006, p. 5) x x x He (the witness) did not mark the shabu. It was only the evidence custodian who marked it.
(ibid, p. 16)
SPO2 LORETO ANCHETA, evidence custodian of the Laoag City, PNP testified that: In the afternoon of July 25, 2003, he received
one (1) plastic sachet containing crystalline substance from Officer Ernesto Bal. Upon receipt of the specimen, he placed markings on
the sachet of the crystalline substance. He prepared a request addressed to Chief of Hospital of the Laoag City GeneralHospital for
physical and ocular examination of the specimen. The request was signed by P/Supt. Joel Pagdilao. He delivered the request and the
specimen to Dr. Eliezer John Asuncion and waited for the result of the physical and ocular examination. Upon receipt of the result of
the examination, he went back to the office and prepared another request for laboratory examination addressed to the Regional Chief
Chemist PNP Crime Laboratory Service, Camp Brigidier General Oscar Florendo Parian, San Fernando, La Union. This was signed by
P/Insp. Dominic Guerrero. He brought the specimen and the letter request to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Juan, Laoag City. It
was received by P/Insp. Valeriano Panem Laya II. (TSN, June 25, 2004, pp. 10-16)
P/INSP. VALERIANO PANEM LAYA II, testified that: As a Forensic Officer, x x x he also holds office at the PNP Crime
Laboratory, Camp Juan, Laoag City. He remembered having received a specimen for examination with respect to a case against Cesar
Castro from Officer Loreto Ancheta (When he was asked where the specimen was, he handed to the prosecutor the plastic sachet
marked as Exhibit D). x x x The result of his examination was that the specimen was positive for the presence of [shabu]. This is
contained in his Chemistry Report D-327-03. Exhibit E (TSN, February 18, 2005, pp. 10-12) On cross examination he testified that:
he weighed the specimen at San Fernando, La Union. The weight was .08 gram and was indicated in his Report. He did not weigh the
representative sample. (ibid, p. 29)[5]

The defense presented in evidence the testimonies of accused Castro and one Rodolfo Bunnao. The RTC also summarized them, as
follows:
CESAR CASTRO x x x testified that: In the afternoon of July 25, 2003, he was at the house of Crispin Valeriano to ask for the
payment of his debt. Because Crispin Valeriano has no money, he went home taking the southward direction to the national road west
of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. He was about to cross towards the other side of the road when a car suddenly stopped in front of him and a
policeman in the person of Ernesto Bal alighted x x x. Ernesto Bal called for him and when he went near him Ernesto Bal immediately
searched his two (2) front pockets and x x x his back pockets but was not able to get anything. He asked Ernest Bal why x x x. Bal told
him that somebody called them telling them that he went to the house of Crispin Valeriano to buy shabu. After he was searched he was
invited by Officer Bal to the police station to make a statement x x x. He voluntarily went with them x x x. Officer Mangapit went out
from the right side of the car and went behind him. When he alighted from the car, Officer Mangapit asked him, What is this? (holding
something placed in a plastic) to which he answered, I dont know. While inside their office, they undressed him and examined
thoroughly even the sleeves of his shirt as well as his pants. He claimed that the plastic is inside and longer when Exhibit D was
shown to him and that the same was 1/3 inch wider and longer. After he was dressed-up, they placed him at the prison cell, where he
resisted. He did not see were PO Mangapit took the plastic sachet but the latter insisted that he took it from the seat where he was
seated. On cross examination, he testified that Police Officers Bal and Mangapit were familiar to him x x x. After the police officers
conducted the investigation and charged him of possession of shabu, they brought him to the Office of Mayor Roger Farias, a close
relative of him. The policemen did not prepare any document stating that they did not hurt him and nothing was lost. He did not
protest when they told him to strip. (TSN, August 24, 2007, pp. 3-14)
RODOLFO BUNNAO testified that: After eating at the kitchenette and went out, he saw Cesar Castro west of the Iglesia Ni Cristo
standing when all of the sudden, a black car stopped and two (2) men alighted from the car, went near Cesar Castro and bodily
searched him. He knew the accused x x x. About one (1) minute after the search, they brought him inside the car proceeding west. x x
x On cross examination [he stated that] x x x [o]n July 25, 2003, there was a cockfight in Laoag City x x x. He took his lunch at the
Modern Kitchenette after he borrowed cockfight money from Marcial Baracao east of the GSIS. Modern Kitchenette is further west
from the most western fence of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. Two (2) men alighted from the black car one is the driver and the other one from
the passengers side. He knew for a fact that there is another man inside the car whom he does not know x x x. (TSN, February 15,
2008, pp. 3-6)[6]

On the main finding that the corpus delicti has been established by the open court narrations of the Peoples witnesses and whose testimony
bespoke of an unbroken chain of custody, the RTC, in its Decision of July 11, 2008, found Castro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged,
disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and after weighing carefully the evidence presented by the prosecution and the
defense, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Considering that the weight of the
methamphetamine hydrochloride is less than 5 grams, he is hereby sentenced to the penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1)
DAY as minimum to TWENTY (20) YEARS as maximum and a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00) in
accordance with Section 11 of R.A. 9165.
SO ORDERED.[7]

Castro appealed to the CA. Following the submission of the Appellants Brief, [8] the Appellees Brief,[9] and Reply Brief of Accused-Appellant,
[10]

the CA rendered judgment dismissing the appeal. Castro later moved for, but was denied, reconsideration.
The CA brushed aside Castros threshold defense line that he did not have, when arrested, possession and custody of prohibited drug, the court

stating in this regard that illegal drug possession under the law includes both actual and constructive possessions. Citing the testimony of Police Officer 1
(PO1) Mangapit, as corroborated by that of Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Bal, the CA also declared that Castro, by his prior and contemporaneous acts,
had actual and constructive possession of, or, in fine, had the intent to possess, the seized plastic sachet containing shabu, for the plastic sachet in question
was initially in Castros pants pocket but which he tossed to the ground upon realizing that the ones about to accost him were police officers.
Anent allegations of non-compliance by the police officers of the requirements under Sec. 21 of RA 9165 [11] on inventory and photographing of
the seized shabu, the CA aptly held that failure to literally comply with said requirements is not fatal to the prosecution, if there is a clear showing that the
identity and integrity of the seized shabuspecimen have been preserved, as in the case at bar. In net effect, the CA held that the chain of custody, as the
term is understood in drug-prosecution cases, has not been broken.
In the instant appeal, accused-appellant Castro imputes error on the part of the appellate court respecting its conclusion about the corpus
delicti having been established, it being his contention that: (1) the crucial link in the chain of custody of the alleged seized shabu had not been

established; and (2) accused-appellants possession of the drug had remained unproved. By questioning the credibility of the prosecutions witnesses and
the weight the courts a quo gave their narration of events, accused-appellant veritably says that he was a victim of frame-up.
The appeal is bereft of merit.
As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the presentation and admission of the seized prohibited drug as an
exhibit be preceded by evidence to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent clams it to be. [12] This requirement is essential to
obviate the possibility of substitution as well as to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and
tracking of the movements and custody of the seized prohibited item, from the accused, to the police, to the forensic laboratory for examination, and to its
presentation in evidence in court. [13] Ideally, the custodial chain would include testimony about every link in the chain or movements of the illegal drug,
from the moment of seizure until it is finally adduced in evidence. It cannot be overemphasized, however, that a testimony about a perfect chain is almost
always impossible to obtain.[14]
A circumspect review of the evidence extant on record shows that the chain of custody rule has been sufficiently observed. The prosecution had
proved with moral certainty, thru the testimony of their key witnessesi.e., SPO2 Bal, one of the apprehending officers; SPO2 Ancheta, the evidence
custodian; and Police Inspector Laya II, the forensic officerthat what was seized from accused-appellant in the afternoon of July 25, 2003 near a church
building in Laoag City was the very same item presented in court after it was subjected to qualitative examination and was tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride. In fine, the prosecution was able to establish that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the seized prohibited
drugs have not been compromised from the time of its seizure at the time and place aforestated to its presentation in evidence as part of the corpus delicti.
In a prosecution involving illegal possession of prohibited/dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proved: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug. As determined by both the trial and appellate courts, the prosecution was able to establish, through testimonial,
documentary, and object evidence, the said elements. [15] As a matter of settled jurisprudence on illegal possession of drug cases, credence is usually
accorded the narration of the incident by the apprehending police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.
Accused-appellant denies having had possession of the prohibited drug in question.
The accounts of arresting officers PO1 Mangapit and SPO2 Bal belie accused-appellants gratuitous denial, both police officers testifying without
any trace of hesitation that accused-appellant had the sachet containing the shabu in his pocket until the moment he threw it away. The fact that the plastic
sachet containing shabu was already on the ground when the arrest was effected is not, standing alone, an exculpating factor. What the Court said
in People v. De Leon is instructive:
Herein appellant was caught red-handed in the act of committing the offenses for which he was charged. He made the sale in
the presence of the police operatives, the poseur-buyer and the informant. When he fled, he carried then threw the envelope containing
the regulated drugs inside the bedroom in full view of PO1 Libuton, the pursuing arresting officer. There was therefore no need for a
warrant to arrest and search the person of appellant. [16]
In the instant case, the arresting officers, having been furnished a description of accused-appellant from a tipster, had a reason to suspect that
petitioner is in possession of the prohibited substance. Thereafter, they witnessed in plain view accused-appellant throwing to the ground a plastic sachet
containing a white substance. The very act of throwing away the sachet, the contents of which were later determined to be shabu, presupposes that
accused-appellant had prior possession of it. Ergo, all the elements of the crime have been met.
In People v. Isnani,[17] the Court likewise ruled the admissibility of shabu which was thrown outside the window by the appellant in that case.
Finally, accused-appellants allegation of frame-up or planting of evidence will not avail him any, given the categorical testimonies of PO1
Mangapit and SPO2 Bal of the events leading to accused-appellants apprehension and eventual custodial investigation. In the absence of any evidence that
the prosecution witnesses were motivated by motives less than proper, the trial courts assessment of the credibility of the witnesses shall not be interfered
with by this Court.[18]

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The CAs January 6, 2010 Decision and August 10, 2010 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR
No. 31793 are, accordingly, AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.

PEOPLE vs. VILLANUEVA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
For review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00975, dated December 20, 2005,
affirming in toto the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City, Branch 72, in Crim. Case No. 27159-MN
finding appellant Roger Villanueva y Huelva guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165
(2002), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and costs.
The Information dated July 11, 2002 against the appellant alleges:
That on or about the 9th day of July, 2002 in the Municipality of Navotas, Metro Manila Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a private person and without authority of
law, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver in consideration of the amount of
P100.00 to poseur buyer One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
with net weight 0.21 gram, which substance when subjected to chemistry examination gave positive result for
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known "shabu", a regulated drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Appellant pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.4
PO1 Ariosto Rana of the Dangerous Drugs Enforcement Group (DDEG), Northern Police District, testified that at 8:00
p.m. of July 9, 2002, a confidential informant informed them that appellant was selling shabu at Block 8, lot 2, Phase 2,
Area 1, Dagat-dagatan, Navotas.5 He immediately composed a team of police operatives to entrap the appellant, 6 with
him posing as the poseur-buyer. After marking the P100.00 bill and recording in the blotter its serial number, the team
proceeded to the place and arrived thereat around 9:30 p.m. He and the informant approached the appellant while the
rest strategically positioned themselves. The informant introduced him to the appellant, who asked them if they wanted
to buy shabu. Appellant got one plastic sachet from his pocket containing a white crystalline substance. After appellant
received the marked money, Rana executed the prearranged signal and the team arrested the appellant. The
confiscated substance was submitted to the Northern Police District-Crime Laboratory for examination, 7 which yielded
the following results:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "RVH BB" containing 0.21 gram of white
crystalline substance. xxx.
xxxx
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug. x x x8
Denying the accusations against him, appellant testified that on the night of the alleged commission of the crime, he
was at home watching television. Thereafter, two policemen knocked at the door looking for a certain person named
Roger. When he identified himself as Roger, he was immediately handcuffed and brought to the headquarters without
explanation. It was only later that he found out that he was being charged for sellingshabu.9

After hearing, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Roger Villanueva y Huelva
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for drug pushing, penalized under Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165 and he is hereby
sentenced, in view of the small quantity of shabu involved, to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00, and to pay the costs.
The decks of shabu subjects of this case are forfeited in favor of the government to be disposed of under the
rules governing the same. OIC-Branch Clerk of Court Enriqueta A. Marquez is hereby enjoined to immediately
turn over the deck of shabu to the proper authority for final disposition.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.10
Considering the penalty imposed, the case was directly appealed to this Court for automatic review. However, pursuant
to our decision in People v. Mateo11 modifying the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as direct appeals
from the Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment, this case was referred to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court,
thus:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the challenged decision
AFFIRMED in toto. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.12
Hence, this petition.
The core issue for resolution is whether error attended the trial courts findings, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that
appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165.
Appellant maintains that there was no entrapment and that he was arrested in his house on the night of the alleged
commission of the crime. While he admits that the resolution of the case would boil down to the determination of who
between the parties is more credible, he insists that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
alone could not sustain a conviction; and that the self-serving and uncorroborated testimony of PO1 Rana could not
prevail over his constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence. 13
In essence, what appellant puts at issue is the trial courts appreciation of factual details of the buy-bust operation or the
entrapment. Suffice it to say that settled is the policy of this Court, founded on reason and experience, to sustain the
factual findings of the trial court in criminal cases, on the rational assumption that it is in a better position to assess the
evidence before it, having had the opportunity to make an honest determination of the witnesses deportment during the
trial.14 In the instant case, we find no basis to disregard the trial courts factual findings.
Indeed, in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the commission of
the crime but likewise to establish, with the same quantum of proof, the identity of the person or persons responsible
therefor. This burden of proof does not shift to the defense but remains in the prosecution throughout the trial. However,
when the prosecution has succeeded in discharging the burden of proof by presenting evidence sufficient to convince
the court of the truth of the allegations in the information or has established a prima facie case against the accused, the
burden of evidence shifts to the accused making it incumbent upon him to adduce evidence in order to meet and nullify,
if not to overthrow, that prima facie case.15
To sustain a conviction under a single prosecution witness, such testimony needs only to establish sufficiently: 1) the
identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.
Indeed, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
the substance seized as evidence.16 In this case, PO1 Rana, being the poseur-buyer, was the most competent person to
testify on the fact of sale and he did so to the satisfaction of both the trial court and the appellate court.
Thus, we agree with the Court of Appeals that:

Contrary to appellants assertions, the prosecution has established with moral certainty the presence of all the
elements necessary for the prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu. In the case at bar, there is no doubt that
appellant was caught in the very act of selling "shabu", a prohibited drug. PO1 Ariosto Rana, the prosecution
witness who acted as poseur-buyer, narrated in a clear and straightforward manner the facts of sale. x x x
xxxx
What is more, the identities of the seller and the buyer together with the corpus delict[i] of selling shabuhave
also been duly established. Poseur-buyer PO1 Ariosto Rana positively identified accused-appellant Roger
Villanueva as the person who sold to him one plastic sachet containing the white crystalline substance. x x x
xxxx
Then too, the regulated drug of shabu contained in a plastic sachet which the appellant handed over to the
buyer, was also duly proven before the trial court. x x x
xxxx
Against these strong positive and substantial evidence, appellant could only say that no buy-bust operation was
conducted and, instead, insists that he was just a victim of frame-up; that the policemen carried out an illegal
search on the premises of his house, planted evidence, and then charged him as a supplier of drugs.
The contentions are without merit.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment that is resorted to for trapping and capturing felons in the execution
of their criminal plan. The operation is sanctioned by law and has consistently proved to be an effective method
of apprehending drug peddlers. 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 with
respect to the operation deserve full faith and credit. Verily, here, from the evidence adduced, We find no reason
to depart from the general rule. We are one with the court a quos conclusion that the prosecution was able to
establish that a buy-bust operation actually took place starting from the time the team composed of nine (9)
members proceeded to the target area at 9:00 p.m. for the initial negotiation until the perfection of the sale at
9:30 p.m. the same night.17
Moreover, when the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation have no motive to falsely testify against the
accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly; 18 and as held inPeople
v. Pacis,19 bare denials by the accused cannot overcome this presumption.
All told, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly held that the appellant committed the crime charged. What
remains to be determined is the correctness of the penalty imposed on the felony committed.
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 reads:
Sec. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a
fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.
In finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, the trial court sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand pesos (P500,000.00). While it correctly
imposed the said penalties, we find the reason given therefor, that is, in view of the small quantity of shabu involved,
inaccurate.
Unlike under the repealed R.A. No. 6425 (1972) or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 where the imposable penalty
depends on the quantity of the regulated drug involved, the foregoing provision now imposes 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) for the sale, trade, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of shabu, a
dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity involved.20
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00975, dated
December 20, 2005, affirming in toto the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City, Branch 72, in Crim. Case
No. 27159-MN finding appellant Roger Villanueva y Huelva guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and costs, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
PEOPLE vs. CLIMACO
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a consolidated criminal case filed against appellant Gomer S. Climaco (Climaco) for violation of Sections 5 and
11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for illegal possession (Criminal Case
No. 4911-SPL) and illegal sale (Criminal Case No. 4912-SPL) of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, in its Decision dated 20 January 2009 (RTC
Decision), found Climaco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and sentenced him to imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months
with a fine of P 300,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 4911-SPL.1 In Criminal Case No. 4912-SPL, the RTC found Climaco
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and sentenced him to life
imprisonment with a fine of P500,000.00. On appeal, the Special Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA), in its
Decision dated 29 March 2011 (CA Decision), affirmed the RTC Decision.2 Climaco appealed to this Court by filing a
Notice of Appeal in accordance with Section 3(c), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court. 3
Prosecutions Version
The prosecutions version of events is summarized in the RTC Decision:4
The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses in the persons of PO1 Alaindelon M. Ignacio, who gave his testimony on 5
January 2005, 8 February 2006 and 2 August 2006; and Forensic Chemist Donna Villa Huelgas, whose testimony was
dispensed with on 5 January 2005 upon defenses admission of the existence of the following: 1) Written Request for
Laboratory Examination as Exhibit "A"; 2) The Chemistry Report No. D-1102-04 as Exhibit "B"; 3) 1 white envelope as
Exhibit "C"; 4) the existence of two (2) plastic sachets with markings "GSC-1" as Exhibit "C-1"; and 5) another one with
markings "GSC-2" as Exhibit "C-2".
PO1 Ignacio testified that he is a member of the Philippine National Police since 15 October 1999 and was assigned at
Intelligence Division, San Pedro Municipal Police Station. As member of the Intelligence Division, he was tasked to
conduct surveillance operation and apprehend persons engaged in illegal drug activity. On 7 September 2004, he was
on 24-hour duty at PAC base located at United Bayanihan, San Pedro, Laguna. At around 6:00 in the evening of the
same day, PO1 Ignacio, SPO3 Samson, SPO4 Balverde, some members of the Laguna Special Operation Team,
Members of the Provincial Intelligence and Investigation Division conducted a briefing regarding a drug operation
against a certain Gomer Climaco, No. 5 in the drug watch list in San Pedro, Laguna. During the briefing, PO1 Ignacio
was tasked to act as the poseur-buyer and SPO4 Almeda as the overall team leader. The buy-bust money was
prepared, which consist of P500.00 bill and some boodle money. The team was also armed with a Warrant of Arrest for
illegal drugs issued by Judge Pao. After the briefing, the team proceeded to the target area. When they arrived, PO1
Ignacio saw the suspect standing in front of his house. The other members of the team strategically positioned
themselves. Since PO1 Ignacio already knew the suspect, PO1 Ignacio just told Gomer that he would buy shabu.
Gomer entered his house and took something. When he came out, Gomer showed to PO1 Ignacio the shabu. PO1
Ignacio scratched his head to signal the team that item was shown to him and he would execute the buying of the
shabu. After Gomer asked for the money and PO1 Ignacio gave it to him, SPO3 Samson and the rest of the team
immediately moved in to effect the arrest of the suspect. Since he was caught in the act, Gomer did not resist anymore.
The team likewise showed Gomer his warrant of arrest. PO1 Ignacio saw SPO3 Samson frisk and ask Gomer to empty
8

his pockets. SPO3 Samson was able to recover another plastic sachet, which was inserted between Gomers fingers.
The plastic sachet, which was the product of the buy-bust, and the one recovered from Gomer were turned over to
SPO4 Teofilo Royena, who turned them over to the Office of the Special Operation Group located at Brgy. Tubigan,
Bian, Laguna. The plastic sachet product of the buy-bust was marked TR-B, which means Teofilo Royena and the
letter "B" means "Bust." While the plastic sachet recovered from Gomer was marked TR-R, which means Teofilo Royena
and the letter "R" means "Recovered". PO1 Ignacio identified the accused Gomer Climaco in open court. He likewise
identified his sworn statement. During the cross-examination, PO1 Ignacio admitted that he learned of the warrant of
arrest on 7 September 2004 only. It was SPO4 Valverde who instructed PO Ignacio to conduct surveillance operation
against Gomer, who was engaged in rampant selling of shabu.5
Aside from the testimony of PO1 Alaindelon Ignacio (Ignacio), the following documentary exhibits were offered for the
prosecution: (1) Exhibit "A" Letter dated 7 September 2004; (2) Exhibit "B" Chemistry Report No. D-1102-04; (3)
Exhibit "C" One-half white envelope; (4) Exhibit "C-1" Plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with markings
"GSC-1"; (5) Exhibit "C-2" Plastic sachet with white crystalline susbtance with markings "GSC-2"; and (6) Exhibit "D"
Pinanumpaang Salaysay of PO1 Ignacio.6
Defenses Version
Appellant Climaco, on the other hand, presented three witnesses and denied the prosecutions allegations of sale and
possession of shabu. The defenses version of the events, as narrated in the RTC Decision, is as follows:
The defense presented three (3) witnesses in the persons of the accused himself, Gomer S. Climaco, who testified on
13 May 2008, Michael M. Basihan, who gave his testimony on 7 October 2008, and Cristina Gamboa Climaco, who
gave her testimony on 25 November 2008.
Gomer S. Climaco testified that prior to 7 September 2004, he did not know SPO2 Wilfredo Samson and PO1
Alaindelon Ignacio. On 7 September 2004, Gomer, together with his wife and five (5) children, were inside their house.
When Gomer was feeding the chicken in front of his yard, four (4) unidentified armed men suddenly arrived and frisked
him. When nothing was found in his possession, the men handcuffed and brought him to the police station. At the police
station, the men filed a case against him. Gomer denied having sold and delivered shabu to a police poseur-buyer and
that he was in possesion of shabu. During the cross-examination, Gomer said that while he was being frisked by the
men, Gomer asked the men what was his violation. The men replied that somebody bought shabu from him. Gomer told
the men that he did nothing wrong, but the men continued to handcuff him. Gomer was not aware that he was included
in the list of top 20 illegal drug pushers. Gomer did not know of any ill motive on the part of the police officer why he
would be charged with so grave an offense. He did not file any case against the police officer who arrested him.
Michael M. Basihan testified that Gomer Climaco was his neighbor in Bagong Silang. On 7 September 2004, Michael
went to Gomers manukan to gather guava fruits. When he arrived there, Gomer was tending to his cocks. While he was
gathering guava fruits, Michael saw four (4) unidentified armed men suddenly barge into the premises and arrest
Gomer. After he was handcuffed, Gomer was made to board a vehicle where he was brought to Jaka Subdivision.
Michael could not remember whether it was morning or evening when Gomer was arrested by unidentified armed men
because the incident happened a long time ago.
Cristina Gamboa Climaco testified that she is the wife of Gomer Climaco. She did not know SPO2 Wilfredo Samson and
PO1 Alaindelon Ignacio. On 7 September 2004, she was inside their house taking care of her child. At around 3:00 in
the afternoon of the same day, Gomer arrived in their house, who just came from Barangay Cuyab. After taking a bath,
Gomer went outside of their house. While in front of their house, Gomer called the person taking care of his chickens.
Gomer and that person went to the back of the house. Meanwhile, Cristina went inside the house. Although she was
inside of the house, Cristina could see Gomer and the person through the window. At around 4:00 in the afternoon,
Cristina saw four (4) unidentified armed men approach and ask something from Gomer. After a few minutes, Gomer left
the back of the house, while the men were left standing there. Cristina went out the house and saw her husband go
toward the direction of St. Reymond. At around 6:00 in the evening, Cirstina went down from their house to ask Michael
if he saw Gomer. Michael told Cristina that he saw Gomer loaded into a van by several men. During the crossexamination, Cristina said that she did not know of any reason why SPO2 Samson and PO1 Ignacio would arrest her
husband.7
The Decision of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC declared Climaco guilty of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu, a dangerous drug. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 4912-SPL, the Court finds the accused, Gomer S. Climaco, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine
of P 500,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. 4911-SPL, the Court finds the accused, Gomer S. Climaco, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of violation of Sec. 11 of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8)
months and to pay a fine of three hundred thousand pesos (P 300,000.00).
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the plastic
sachets subject matter of these cases, for said agencys appropriate disposition.
SO ORDERED.8
The RTC found that the elements for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu were sufficiently
established by the prosecution.9 The RTC held that Climacos defense of frame-up is viewed with disfavor as it can be
easily concocted.10 The RTC gave full faith and credit to the testimony of PO1 Ignacio, and declared the police officers
who participated in the buy-bust operation were properly performing their duties because they were not inspired by any
improper motive.11
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the conviction of Climaco. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the judgment dated January 20, 2009 of the RTC in Criminal Case Nos.
4911-SPL and 4912-SPL finding appellant Gomer S. Climaco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5
and 11 of Rep. Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED.12
The CA declared that all the elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were
proven.13 The CA found that based on the testimony of PO1 Ignacio, it was established that the chain of custody over
the seized drugs was unbroken from the arresting officers to SPO4 Royena, and then to the forensic chemist for
examination.14
The Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether the guilt of Climaco for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession ofshabu, a
dangerous drug, was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Ruling of this Court
We resolve to acquit Climaco for the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
PO1 Ignacio, in his testimony, claimed that the dangerous drugs seized from Climaco were marked by SPO4 Teofilo
Royena as "TR-B" and "TR-R."15 However, the Chemistry Report submitted to the trial court shows that the dangerous
drugs examined and confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu by the forensic chemist were marked
as "GSC1" and "GSC2."16 Since what was seized ("TR-B" and "TR-R") by PO1 Ignacio from Climaco at the time of the
buy-bust operation was different from the dangerous drugs submitted ("GSC1" and "GSC2") to the forensic chemist for
review and evaluation, the chain of custody over the dangerous drugs was broken and the integrity of the evidence
submitted to the trial court was not preserved, casting doubt on the guilt of Climaco.
Constitutional Presumption of Innocence; Weight of Evidence

10

The Constitution guarantees the accuseds presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Section 14(2) of the Bill of
Rights (Article III) provides that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved.
Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court likewise states that, in a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of
proof, excluding possibility of error, which produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainly is required, or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

"Chain of Custody" Over the Confiscated Items

The elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 17 Similarly, it is essential that the
transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus
delicti which means the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged." 18The corpus delicti in cases
involving dangerous drugs is the presentation of the dangerous drug itself.
On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements
must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)
such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 19
In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the chain of custody over the dangerous drug
must be shown to establish the corpus delicti. In People v. Alcuizar,20 the Court held:
The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a
conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have
been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drugs unique characteristic that renders it
indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.
Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show
that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise,
the prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, 21 which implements the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, defines "chain of custody" 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 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.
In Malillin v. People,22 the Court explained the importance of the chain of custody:
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a prohibited
substance be established with moral certainty, together with the fact that the same is not authorized by law. The
dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment
of conviction. Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.
Be that as it may, the mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral
certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally
possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be established with the same
unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of custody requirement performs this
function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded
by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would

11

include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in
evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received,
where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the
chain to have possession of the same.
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an
unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is
not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to
observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering,
contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to fungibility,
alteration or tampering without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not dictates the level of
strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule.
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 v. State positively acknowledged this danger. In that case where a substance was 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 posession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine
its composition, testimony of the state as to the laboratorys 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.
In this case, PO1 Ignacio, in his testimony, claimed that the substances seized from Climaco during the buy-bust
operation were marked as "TR-R" and "TR-B":
Based on the testimony of PO1 Ignacio, the substances retrieved from Climaco and submitted to the court were
contained in two (2) plastic sachets with the markings "TR-R" and "TR-B." However, according to the Chemistry Report
executed by Forensic Chemist Donna Villa P. Huelgas on 8 September 2004, the plastic sachets submitted for
examination carried the markings "GSC-1" and "GSC-2," different from the plastic sachets marked "TR-R" and "TR-B"
containing the drugs retrieved from Climaco:
CHEMISTRY REPORT NUMBER: D-1102-04
xxxx
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, with markings "GSC1", containing 0.35 gram of white
crystalline substance and placed in a staple-sealed transparent plastic bag. (Allegedly bought by the Police
Poseur-Buyer)
B One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, with markings "GSC2", containing 0.14 gram of white
crystalline substance and placed in a staple-sealed transparent plastic bag. (Allegedly found from the posession
of Glomer Climaco)24
In addition, in the Index of Exhibits submitted by the Officer-in-Charge of the RTC, Exhibit "C-1" was described as a
"plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with markings GSC-1" while Exhibit "C-2" was described as a "plastic
12

sachet with white crystalline substance with markings GSC-2,"25 contrary to the testimony of PO1 Ignacio and the
declaration of Prosecutor Casano that the specimens submitted to the court carried the markings "TR-B" and "TR-R."
Likewise, in the handwritten Minutes dated 5 January 2005, Exhibit "C-1" was identified as a plastic sachet with white
crystalline substance with marking "GSC-1," and Exhibit "C-2" was identified as a plastic sachet with white crystalline
substance with marking "GSC-2."26
Clearly, what was submitted to the trial court were plastic sachets bearing the markings "GSC-1" and "GSC-2," instead
of the plastic sachets bearing the markings "TR-R" and "TR-B" that contained the substances recovered from Climaco.
This fact is evident from the RTC Decision, recognizing Exhibits "C-1" and "C-2" to bear the markings "GSC-1" and
"GSC-2," while acknowledging the testimony of PO1 Ignacio that the plastic sachets containing the substances
recovered from Climaco bore the markings "TR-R" and "TR-B":
The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses in the persons of x x x Forensic Chemist Donna Villa Huelgas, whose
testimony was dispensed with on 5 January 2005 upon defenses admission of the existence of the following: 1) Written
Request for Laboratory Examination as Exhibit "A"; 2) The Chemistry Report No. D-1102-04 as Exhibit "B"; 3) 1 white
envelope as Exhibit "C"; 4) the existence of two (2) plastic sachets with markings "GSC-1" as Exhibit "C-1"; and
5) another one with markings "GSC-2" as Exhibit "C-2".
xxxx
The plastic sachet product of the buy-bust was marked TR-B, which means Teofilo Royena and the letter "B" means
"Bust." While the plastic sachet recovered from Gomer was marked TR-R, which means Teofilo Royena and the letter
"R" means "Recovered".27 (Emphasis supplied)
The prosecution did not explain why the markings of the plastic sachets containing the alleged drugs, which were
submitted to be "TR-B" and "TR-R," became "GSC-1" and "GSC-2" in the Chemistry Report, Index of Exhibits and
Minutes of the Hearing. In their decisions, the RTC and CA were silent on the change of the markings. In fact, since the
markings are different, the presumption is that the substance in the plastic sachets marked as "TR-B" and "TR-R" is
different from the substance in the plastic sachets marked as "GSC-1" and "GSC-2." There is no moral certainty that the
substance taken from appellant is the same dangerous drug submitted to the laboratory and the trial court.
1wphi1

As held in Malillin v. People,28 to establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving dangerous
drugs, it is important that the substance illegally possessed in the first place be the same substance offered in court as
exhibit. This chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts are removed concerning the identity of the
evidence. When the identity of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused is not the same dangerous drug
presented to the forensic chemist for review and examination, nor the same dangerous drug presented to the court, the
identity of the dangerous drug is not preserved due to the broken chain of custody. With this, an element in the criminal
cases for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti, is not proven, and the accused must
then be acquitted based on reasonable doubt. For this reason, Climaco must be acquitted on the ground of reasonable
doubt due to the broken chain of custody over the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from him.
WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the 29 March 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03860
affirming the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna in Criminal Case Nos.
4911-SPL and 4912-SPL dated 20 January 2009. We ACQUIT appellant Gomer S. Climaco based on reasonable doubt
and we ORDER his immediate release from detention, unless he is detained for any other lawful cause.
We DIRECT the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to implement this Decision and to report to this Court on the
action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
REYES vs. CA
BERSAMIN, J.:
The burden rests in the Prosecution to see to it that the evidence of guilt satisfies the standard of moral certainty
demanded in all criminal prosecutions. The standard demands that all the essential elements of the offense are

13

established as to leave no room for any doubt about the guilt of the accused. The courts should unfailingly impose the
standard in order to prevent injustice from being perpetrated against the accused.
Under review is the decision promulgated on September 28, 2007 by the Court of Appeals (CA), 1 whereby the CA
affirmed the conviction of petitioner by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2, in Manila 2 for violations of Section 5
and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
Antecedents
On February 23, 2005, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed two informations charging petitioner with illegal
sale of shabu and illegal possession of shabu defined and punished, respectively, by Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No.
9165,3 to wit:
Criminal Case No. 05234564
That on or about January 20, 2005, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being been (sic) authorized
by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly sell One (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero two two (0.022) gram, of white
crystalline substance known as "SHABU" containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
Criminal Case No. 05234565
That on or about January 20, 2005, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being then authorized by law
to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under
his custody and control One (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero two four (0.024) gram
of white crystalline substance known as "SHABU" containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
After petitioner pled not guilty, trial ensued. The summary of the evidence of the parties adduced at trial follows.
In the morning of January 20, 2005, a lady confidential informant went to the Police Station 8 of the Western Police
District to report on the drug-dealing activities of a certain alias Boy (later identified as petitioner) on M. Mapa Street,
Sta. Mesa, Manila.6 A buy-bust team of ten members,7 including PO2 Erwin Payumo as designated poseur-buyer,8 was
formed. PO2 Payumo then prepared the necessary documents prior to the operation. 9
From the police station, the lady confidential informant called petitioner by phone. The latter instructed her to wait on M.
Mapa Street.10 Thus, the buy-bust team proceeded to that area and arrived at around 4:20 p.m. of January 20,
2005.11 PO2 Payumo and the lady confidential informant arrived together to wait for petitioner. The rest of the buy-bust
team, who had gone to the area on board an L300 van, 12 took positions nearby. Petitioner came by five minutes
later,13 and, after asking the lady confidential informant whether PO2 Payumo was the buyer, instructed Payumo to
follow him to his house where he told PO2 Payumo to wait. Two other individuals, later identified as Conchita Carlos and
Jeonilo Flores, were also waiting for petitioner.14
Upon getting back, petitioner asked PO2 Payumo for the payment, 15 and the latter complied and handed the marked
money consisting of three P50.00 bills all bearing the initials "TF".16 Petitioner then went into a room and returned with a
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance that he gave to PO2 Payumo. Receiving the plastic sachet, PO2
Payumo placed a missed call to PO1 Miguelito Gil, a member of the buy-bust team, thereby giving the pre-arranged
signal showing that the transaction was completed. PO2 Payumo then arrested petitioner after identifying himself as an
officer. PO2 Payumo recovered another sachet containing white crystalline substance from petitioners right hand, and
the marked money from petitioners right front pocket.17 The rest of the buy-bust team meanwhile came around and
recovered two sachets also containing white crystalline substance from the sofa where Conchita and Jeonilo were
sitting. The buy-bust team thus also arrested Conchita and Jeonilo.18
Back at the police station, PO2 Payumo placed on the plastic sachet that petitioner had handed him the marking "RRS1" and on the other sachet recovered from petitioners right hand the marking "RRS-2." 19 The seized items were

14

thereafter turned over to the Western Police District Crime Laboratory for examination by P/Insp. Judycel Macapagal,
who found the items positive for methampethamine hydrochloride or shabu. 20
On the other hand, petitioner denied that there had been a buy-bust operation, and claimed that he had been framed
up.
Petitioner testified that he was at his house entertaining his visitors Conchita and Jeonilo in the afternoon of January 20,
2005;21 that Conchita was selling to him a sofa bed for P800.00, while Jeonilo was only contracted by Conchita to drive
the jeepney carrying the sofa bed;22 that the three of them were surprised when a group of armed men in civilian clothes
barged into his house and conducted a search, and arrested them; that he was also surprised to see a plastic sachet
when the armed men emptied his pocket; that the plastic sachet did not belong to him; 23 that PO2 Payumo was not
among those who entered and searched his house;24 that the three of them were made to board a van where PO1
Rudolf Mijares demanded P30,000.00 for his release;25 and that because he told them he had no money to give to them,
one of the men remarked: Sige, tuluyan na yan; and that they were then brought to the police station. 26
Jeonilo corroborated petitioners story.27
Ruling of the RTC
As stated, on May 23, 2006, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, to wit:
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 with respect to the operation deserve full faith and
credit.
However like alibi, we view the defense of frame up with disfavor as it can easily be concocted and is commonly used
as a standard line of defense in most prosecution arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Acts.
Having established that a legitimate buy-bust operation occurred in the case at bar, there can now be no question as to
the guilt of the accused-appellant. Such operation has been considered as an effective mode of apprehending drug
pushers. If carried out with due regard to the constitutional and legal safeguards, it deserves judicial sanction." (People
of the Philippines vs. Lowell Saludes, et al., G.R. No. 144157, June 10, 2003)
The accused failed to show any ill motive on the part of the policeman to testify falsely against him. Indeed, the
prosecution showed that the police were at the place of the incident to do exactly what they are supposed to doto
conduct an operation. The portrayal put forward by accused and his lone witness remained uncorroborated. Evidence to
be believed must not only come from a credible witness but must in itself be credible.
The entrapment operation paved the way for the valid warrantless arrest of accused, Sec. 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Rules
of Court provides thus:
"A police officer or private person, without warrant, may arrest a person:
(a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense; xxx
"It has been held that the testimonies of police officers involved in a buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit,
given the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. This presumption can be overturned if clear and
convincing evidence is presented to prove either two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2)
that they were inspired by any improper motive." (People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Remarata et al., G.R. No.
147230, April 29, 2003)
The positive identification of appellants by the prosecution witness should prevail over the formers denials of the
commission of the crime for which they are charged, since greater weight is generally accorded to the positive testimony
of the prosecution witness than the accuseds denial. Denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail
over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. (People of the
Philippines vs. Edwin Belibet, Manny Banoy and Ronnie Rosero, G.R. No. 91260, July 25, 1991) 28

15

The dispositive portion of the decision of the RTC reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows, to wit:
1. In Criminal Case No. 05-234564, finding accused, Rogelio Reyes y Samson, GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged, he is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P500,000.00
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
2. In Criminal Case No. 05-234565, finding accused, Rogelio Reyes y Samson, GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as
minimum to 17 years and 4 months as maximum; to pay a fine of P300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
The specimens are forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court, accompanied by the Branch
Sheriff, is directed to turn over with dispatch and upon receipt the said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal in accordance with the law and rules.
SO ORDERED.29
With his motion for reconsideration being denied by the RTC, petitioner filed his notice of appeal. 30
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC thuswise:
A fortiori, viewed in the light of the foregoing, We are strongly convinced that the prosecution has proven the guilt of the
Appellant for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED. The challenged Decision of the court a quo is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.31
The CA gave more weight to the testimony of poseur buyer PO2 Payumo, and believed the findings of the laboratory
examination conducted by P/Insp. Macapagal. It recognized the validity of the buy-bust operation.
Issue
Petitioner is now before the Court seeking to reverse the decision of the CA upon the sole error that:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT FINDING WORTHY OF
CREDENCE PETITIONERS WITNESS TESTIMONY CREATING DOUBT ON THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONER OF
THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION.
Petitioner wants the Court to give credence to his defense of frame-up, and to believe the testimony of Jeonilo Flores
who had no reason to testify falsely against the arresting officers.
Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
In this jurisdiction, we convict the accused only when his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. Conformably
with this standard, we are mandated as an appellate court to sift the records and search for every error, though
unassigned in the appeal, in order to ensure that the conviction is warranted, and to correct every error that the lower
court has committed in finding guilt against the accused. 32
Guided by the standard, we acquit petitioner.

16

The buy-bust operation mounted against petitioner resulted from the tip of an unnamed lady confidential informant.
Such an operation, according to People v. Garcia,33 was "susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its
use as a tool for extortion," and the possibility of that abuse was great. 34 The susceptibility to abuse of the operation led
to the institution of several procedural safeguards by R.A. No. 9165, mainly to guide the law enforcers. Thus, the State
must show a faithful compliance with such safeguards during the prosecution of every drug-related offense. 35
The procedural safeguards start with the requirements prescribed by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 relating to the custody
and disposition of the confiscated, seized, and surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of the dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments and paraphernalia, and laboratory equipment. The provision
relevantly states:
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. xxx:
(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; xxx (Emphasis supplied)
This appeal involves two distinct drug-related offenses, namely: illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and illegal possession
of dangerous drugs. The successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires: (a) proof that the
transaction or sale took place, and (b) the presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti, or the dangerous
drugs themselves. On the other hand, the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs necessitates the
following facts to be proved, namely: (a) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs, (b) such possession was
not authorized by law, and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous
drugs.36 For both offenses, it is crucial that the Prosecution establishes the identity of the seized dangerous drugs in a
way that the integrity thereof has been well preserved from the time of seizure or confiscation from the accused until the
time of presentation as evidence in court. Nothing less than a faithful compliance with this duty is demanded of all law
enforcers arresting drug pushers and drug possessors and confiscating and seizing the dangerous drugs and
substances from them.
This duty of seeing to the integrity of the dangerous drugs and substances is discharged only when the arresting law
enforcer ensures that the chain of custody is unbroken. This has been the reason for defining chain of custody under
Section 1(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, viz:
(b) "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 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 or custody were
made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence, and the final disposition; (Emphasis supplied)
In Mallilin v. People,37 the need to maintain an unbroken chain of custody is emphasized:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded
by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would
include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into
evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received,
where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the
chain to have possession of the same.
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an
unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is
not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to
observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering,

17

contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to fungibility,
alteration or tamperingwithout regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise notdictates the level of
strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule.
Cogently, Mallilin v. People is reiterated in Catuiran v. People, 38 People v. Garcia,39 and People v. Villanueva,40among
others.
Here, the Prosecution failed to demonstrate a faithful compliance by the arresting lawmen of the rule on chain of
custody. To start with, the fact that the dangerous drugs were inventoried and photographed at the site of arrest upon
seizure in the presence of petitioner, a representative of the media, a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official, was not shown. As such, the arresting lawmen did not at all comply with the further
requirement to have the attending representative of the media, representative of the DOJ, and elected public official sign
the inventory and be furnished a copy each of the inventory. Instead, the records show that PO2 Payumo placed the
markings of "RRS-1" on the sachet allegedly received from petitioner and "RRS-2" on the two sachets allegedly seized
from petitioners hand already at the police station with only petitioner present. Yet, the Prosecution did not also present
any witness to establish that an inventory of the seized articles at least signed by petitioner at that point was prepared.
We clarified in People v. Sanchez41 that in compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, supra, the physical inventory
and photographing of the seized articles should be conducted, if practicable, at the place of seizure or confiscation in
cases of warrantless seizure. But that was true only if there were indications that petitioner tried to escape or resisted
arrest, which might provide the reason why the arresting team was not able to do the inventory or photographing at
petitioners house; otherwise, the physical inventory and photographing must always be immediately executed at the
place of seizure or confiscation.
In People v. Pringas,42 the non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21, supra, was held not to be fatal for as
long as there was justifiable ground for it, and for as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated or
seized articles were properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team. The Court further pronounced therein that
such non-compliance would not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible, for what was of utmost importance was the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized or confiscated articles, considering that they were to be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.
However, the omissions noted herein indicated that the State did not establish the identity of the dangerous drugs
allegedly seized from petitioner with the same exacting certitude required for a finding of guilt.
To be sure, the buy-bust operation was infected by lapses. Although PO2 Payumo declared that he was the one who
had received the sachet of shabu ("RRS-1") from petitioner and who had confiscated the two sachets of shabu ("RRS2") from petitioner, all of which he had then sealed, nothing more to support the fact that the evidence thus seized had
remained intact was adduced. In fact, the State did not anymore establish to whom the seized articles had been
endorsed after PO2 Payumo had placed the markings at the station, and with whose custody or safekeeping the seized
articles had remained until their endorsement to P/Insp. Macapagal for the laboratory examination. Presently, we cannot
justifiably presume that the seized articles had remained in the possession of PO2 Payumo in view of the testimony of
P/Insp. Macapagal to the effect that the party requesting the laboratory examination had been a certain Police Officer
Alano,43 whom the Prosecution did not at all particularly identify or present as its witness. In this regard, Laboratory
Report No. D-085-05,44 the report prepared by P/Insp. Macapagal, also stated that the party requesting the conduct of
the laboratory examination was the "OIC-SAID-SOTU, PS-8, Western Police District." Also, the Prosecution did not
show to whom the seized articles had been turned over following the conduct of the laboratory examination, and how
the seized articles had been kept in a manner that preserved their integrity until their final presentation in court as
evidence of the corpus delicti. Such lapses of the Prosecution were fatal to its proof of guilt because they demonstrated
that the chain of custody did not stay unbroken, thereby raising doubt on the integrity and identity of the dangerous
drugs as evidence of the corpus delicti of the crimes charged.
We are then not surprised to detect other grounds for skepticism about the evidence of guilt.
Firstly, PO2 Payumo testified that the lady confidential informant had gone to Police Station 8 to report the alleged drugselling activities of petitioner for the first time in the morning of January 20, 2005. That report led to the forming of the
buy-bust team,45 for purposes of which he prepared the pre-operation documents. His veracity was suspect, however,
considering that his so-called Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet appeared to have been prepared on the day before, as
its date "January 19, 2005" disclosed.46 The date of January 19, 2005 also appeared in the Certification of Coordination

18

issued by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in reference to the buy-bust operation against
petitioner.47 Considering that the Prosecution did not explain the discrepancy, the impression is unavoidable that the
buy-bust operation was already set in motion even before the lady informant actually made her report against petitioner.
Thereby, his defense of frame-up was bolstered.
Secondly, the Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet indicated that there were ten members "and three (3) others" that
comprised the buy-bust team.48 Yet, the Joint Affidavit submitted by the members of the buy-bust team was executed
and signed by only six officers (excluding even poseur buyer PO2 Payumo himself), namely: PO1 Mijares, PO1 Mark
Dave Vicente, PO1 Maurison Ablaza, PO1 Elmer Clemente and PO1 Gil. 49 The Prosecutions failure to explain why only
six members of the buy-bust team actually executed and signed the Joint Affidavit might indicate that the incrimination of
petitioner through the buy-bust operation was probably not reliable.
1wphi1

And, thirdly, both the Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet and the Certification of Coordination revealed that the
confidential information received involved two suspects of illegal drug trade in Bacood, Sta. Mesa known as alias Boy
and alias Totoy Tinga. PO2 Payumo recalled, however, that the lady confidential informant had tipped the police off only
about alias Boy. It seems from such selectiveness that PO2 Payumo deliberately omitted the other target and zeroed in
only on alias Boy (petitioner), which might suggest that PO2 Payumo was not as reliable as a poseur buyer-witness as
he presented himself to be.
1wphi1

Conviction must stand on the strength of the Prosecutions evidence, not on the weakness of the defense the accused
put up.50 Evidence proving the guilt of the accused must always be beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence of guilt
falls short of this requirement, the Court will not allow the accused to be deprived of his liberty. His acquittal should
come as a matter of course.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on September 28, 2007 by the Court
of Appeals; and ACQUITS accused ROGELIO S. REYES of the crimes charged in Criminal Case No. 05-234564 and
Criminal Case No. 05-234565.
The Court DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City to release ROGELIO S. REYES from
custody unless he is detained thereat for another lawful cause; and to report on his compliance herewith within five days
from receipt.
No pronouncements on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED
DAVID vs. PEOPLE
PERALTA, J.:
For this Court's consideration is the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure dated April 11, 2008 of petitioner Raul David, assailing the Decision 2 dated August 31, 2007 and
Resolution3 dated February 20, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 29746, affirming the
Decision4 dated April 27, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Capas, Tarlac in Criminal Cases No. 1811-1812,
finding petitioner Raul David, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.)
9165.
As shown in the records, the following are the antecedent facts:
After receiving an information from a certain Victor Garcia that a person was selling illegal drugs at L. Cortez St., Brgy.
San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac, the Intelligence Operatives of the Concepcion Police Station, Concepcion, Tarlac,
conducted a surveillance on the place from May 25, 2003 until June 23, 2003 when they applied for a search warrant
which was granted on the same day. Before implementing the search warrant, the police officers conducted another
surveillance from June 23 to June 24, 2003 during which, it was observed that several students were going inside the
petitioners house. It was also during that time that the poseur-buyer was able to buy shabu (methamphetamine
hydrochloride) from the petitioner.

19

On June 29, 2003, around 1:00 p.m., the search team composed of PO3 Mario Flores, PO2 Henry Balabat, SPO1
Rustico Basco and PO1 Roger Paras, implemented the search warrant with the presence of Barangay Captain Antonio
Canono. The search team, before conducting the search, sought permission from the petitioner. The two-storey house
had two rooms one downstairs and the other one upstairs. According to petitioner, the room downstairs was occupied
by his brother, Rael David, who was not present during the search, and the room upstairs was occupied by the former.
PO3 Flores found six (6) sachets of marijuana and three (3) plastic sachets of substance suspected to be shabu on top
of a padlocked cabinet underneath the stairs. During that time, appellant was around two (2) meters away in the sala.
Thereafter, the police operatives took pictures of the items searched and the barangay captain signed a certificate of
good search. The confiscated items were then turned over to Investigator Simplicio Cunanan of the Concepcion Police
Station for investigation.
It was revealed in Chemistry Report No. D-143-20035 of Police Inspector Jessica R. Quilang that the specimens in the
three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with "RB-A," "RB-B," and "RB-C" markings were positive for 0.327
gram of shabu, a dangerous drug, while the specimen in the six (6) heat-sealed plastic sachets with markings "RB-1" up
to "RB-6" were positive for 3.865 grams of marijuana.
Thus, appellant was charged in the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. 1811
That on or about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 29 June 2003, at Brgy. San Jose, [M]unicipality of Concepcion,
[P]rovince of Tarlac, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and criminally possessed Six (6) plastic heat-sealed sachets containing dried marijuana leaves weighing
more or less 3.865 gram[s] without being authorized by law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
Criminal Case No. 1812
That on or about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 29 June 2003, at Brgy. San Jose, [M]unicipality of Concepcion,
[P]rovince of Tarlac, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and criminally possessed three (3) plastic heat-sealed sachets containing [METHAMPHETAMINE]
HYDROCHLORIDE, better known as Shabu, weighing more or less 0.327 gram without being authorized by law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
Upon arraignment on August 4, 2003, petitioner, assisted by his counsel, pleaded "not guilty" on both charges. 8The trial
on the merits ensued, where the facts earlier stated were testified to by the witnesses for the prosecution, namely: PO3
Mario Flores, SPO1 Rustico Basco and Officer Jessica Quilang. On the other hand, the defense presented the
testimonies of the petitioner; his brother, Rael David, and his sister-in-law, Lilibeth David, the summary of which follows:
Police operatives arrived at the house of the petitioner in the afternoon of June 29, 2003. PO3 Flores grabbed the
petitioner and pulled him through his clothes and announced their authority to search. This prompted the petitioner's
sister-in-law, Lilibeth David, to get out of the room in order to prevent the said policeman from grabbing the petitioner. To
avoid any implantation of evidence, petitioner took off his shirt. Lilibeth David summoned the barangay captain,
afterwhich, policemen Basco, Flores and Paras conducted the search which lasted for about thirty (30) minutes, while
the other police officer stayed outside with the barangay captain.
Police officers Basco and Paras searched the ground floor first and found nothing. Thereafter, police officer Flores
allegedly saw marijuana on top of a cabinet inside the room downstairs. Upon the discovery, the item was
photographed. Afterwards, petitioner was asked about the whereabouts of the shabu. At the time of the search,
petitioner's brother, Rael David, was not present. Consequently, petitioner was taken to the police station for custodial
investigation and during the interrogation, he was not informed of his right to counsel.
The trial court found the petitioner guilty in its Decision dated April 27, 2005, the dispositive portion of which follows:

20

WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Possession of 3.865 grams of
Marijuana and 0.327 gram of [methamphetamine] hydrochloride (shabu), accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalties of Twelve (12) years & one day, as minimum, to Fourteen years, as maximum, and to pay a fine
of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos.
SO ORDERED.9
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction with modifications, the dispositive portion of its Decision dated August 31,
2007 reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Capas, Tarlac, Branch 66 in Criminal Cases No. 1811-1812,
finding accused-appellant Raul David y Erese, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of
R.A. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1) In Criminal Case No. 1811 for illegal possession of marijuana, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Twelve
(12) Years and One (1) day, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of THREE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00);
2) In Criminal Case No. 1812 for illegal possession of shabu, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Twelve
(12) Years and One (1) day, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of THREE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00).
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.10
The CA, in its Resolution11 dated February 20, 2008, denied appellant's Motion for Reconsideration, 12 hence, the present
petition where the appellant presented the following issues:
GROUND FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING WITH MODIFICATION THE PETITIONER'S
CONVICTION. THE ASSAILED DECISION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE
JURISPRUDENCE, AND IF NOT CORRECTED, IT WILL CAUSE GRAVE INJUSTICE AND [IRREPARABLE] INJURY
TO HEREIN PETITIONER.
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR RESOLUTION
I
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
II
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONVICTING THE PETITIONER DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO PROVE THAT THE DANGEROUS DRUGS SUBMITTED FOR LABORATORY EXAMINATION
AND PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT WERE THE SAME ONES ALLEGEDLY SEIZED.
III
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH
FOUND THE PETITIONER GUILTY OF A SINGLE CHARGE OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.
The petition lacks merit.

21

The arguments presented in the petition are purely factual. This is contrary to what is allowed by law when filing a
petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.13 Nevertheless, this Court, upon review of the records of this case, finds
that the trial court and the CA's findings of facts should be accorded respect.
For a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper, it must be shown that (a) the accused was in
possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (b) such possession is not authorized
by law; and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 14
Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, it was proven that all the elements for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs are present in this case. PO3 Mario Flores, during the search in the house of petitioner, found six (6)
sachets of marijuana and three (3) sachets of shabu, both classified as dangerous drugs under the pertinent law, on top
of a padlocked cabinet underneath the stairs.
However, petitioner questions the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution. He argues that the testimony of PO3
Flores that he found six (6) teabags of marijuana and three (3) sachets of shabu remains uncorroborated as SPO1
Basco testified that he did not see PO3 Flores when the latter discovered the said dangerous drugs. Even so, this does
not diminish the fact that dangerous drugs were found during the search of the house. The Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), in its Comment17 dated October 16, 2008, was correct in pointing out that during the operation, it is not
incredible that only one of the operatives found the dangerous drugs because they were scattered throughout the
house. The OSG stated:
x x x The fact that PO3 Flores was the only one who discovered the illegal substances is not incredible. It must be
considered that during the operation, the police operatives scattered themselves throughout the house in order to
conduct the search. SPO1 Basco searched the upper room, while PO3 Flores searched the lower portion of the house.
Noteworthy, the testimonies of SPO1 Basco and PO3 Flores jibed on material points, particularly on the illegal objects
seized. SPO1 Basco corroborated PO3 Flores' testimony that he found six (6) sachets of marijuana and three sachets
of shabu during the search. x x x18
Petitioner also claims that the prior surveillance before the issuance of a search warrant was not clearly established by
the testimonies of the witnesses. He insists that SPO1 Basco testified that a surveillance was conducted by PO3 Flores
and PO1 Joel Canlas from May 25, 2003 to June 24, 2003, but PO3 Flores denied having participated in the
surveillance and pointed to PO1 Canlas as the one who conducted the surveillance. According to petitioner, such
inconsistency in the testimony is damaging. This Court finds no significance in the said inconsistency as it is merely
minor. What is important is that they were able to establish through their testimonies that a surveillance indeed took
place before and even after the issuance of the search warrant.
It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution
witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there
is evidence to the contrary.22 It must be emphasized that their testimonies in open court are considered in line with the
presumption that law enforcement officers have performed their duties in a regular manner.23 In the absence of proof of
motive to impute falsely a crime as serious as violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses, shall prevail over petitioners self-serving and uncorroborated denial. 24 Moreover, the factual findings of the
trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and binding on this Court. 25
Petitioner further contends that the testimonies of the defense witnesses were not considered; otherwise, it would have
been proven that the dangerous drugs found on top of the aparador were planted. It must be remembered that the
defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted
and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. 26 In this case,
petitioner was not able to present any concrete or strong evidence that would support his allegation that he was the
victim of a frame-up aside from his insinuation that had the trial court considered the testimonies of the witnesses he
presented, the same court could have inferred the presence of a set-up or the planting of evidence on the part of the
police operatives. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing
evidence.27
In claiming that the identity of the drugs subject of the charges was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, petitioner
states that there was no marking of the substances seized immediately after the search and there was no proof that the
drugs presented in court were the same drugs seized from his house. Yet a close reading of the records shows the
opposite.

22

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. 9165 provides:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof;
The above provision is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of
R.A. No. 9165, thus:
(a) 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: 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.
The prosecution was able to prove the unbroken chain of custody of the items seized. As earlier discussed, the
witnesses for the prosecution were able to categorically testify that the dangerous drugs were found in the residence of
the petitioner during their search. As shown in Chemistry Report No. D-143-2003, which was identified and testified on
by Police Inspector Jessica Ramos Quilang, the three (3) plastic sachets containing a substance was positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride and marked as "RB-A," "RB-B," and "RB-C" and the six (6) plastic sachets were
positive for marijuana and marked as "RB-1," "RB-2," "RB-3," "RB-4," "RB-5" and "RB-6." 28 Thereafter, as testified by
PO3 Flores, the items were photographed and the barangay captain signed a certificate of good search.
Therefore, it is apparent from the above disquisition that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized were
well-preserved. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as it would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 30 Anyway, this Court has
consistently ruled that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not necessarily render
the items seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible.31 Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is
not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been
preserved, i.e., the items being offered in court as exhibits are, without a specter of doubt, the very same ones
recovered in the buy-bust operation.32 Hence, once the possibility of substitution has been negated by evidence of an
unbroken and cohesive chain of custody over the contraband, such contraband may be admitted and stand as proof of
the corpus delicti notwithstanding the fact that it was never made the subject of an inventory or was photographed
pursuant to Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165. 33
Anent petitioner's contention that having been caught in possession of shabu and marijuana in one occasion, he should
have been charged with, and convicted of, one offense only, this Court finds it meritorious.
Before the enactment of R.A. 9165, the governing law on dangerous drugs was R.A. 6425, which differentiated
regulated drugs from prohibited drugs. It laid down different provisions for possession of regulated and prohibited drugs.
Under R.A. 9165, the distinction between regulated and prohibited drugs has been removed and both are now classified
as dangerous drugs. The eradication of such distinction was the real intention of the legislators. As read from the
transcript of stenographic notes of the Twelfth Congress on the deliberation of R.A. 9165, then Senate Bill No. 1858:
Senator Leviste. And we are in support of the good sponsor's conviction to give teeth to this new law and to go all out
against drugs.

23

Under the old law R.A. No. 6425 a classification was provided between a prohibited drug and a regulated drug. I
believe in the new proposed measure, there is no distinction between the two categories. And in lieu of the two
categories, the new measure merely provides for an all-embracing category of dangerous drugs.
May we know, Mr. President, the significance of eliminating the two categories in the old law because there might be
adverse implications if we do not classify "prohibited" from "regulated" drugs. There are instances, for example, when a
cancer patient I know I am not a doctor but Senator Flavier might be able to enlighten us here is allowed to use with
prescription from a licensed physician regulated drugs. Morphine, for example, for pain killers. How would this
declassification affect this case?
Senator Barbers. Well, her point is very valid, Mr. President. The reason as to why under R.A. No. 6425 there was a
distinction between "prohibited" and "regulated" drugs is that this is in consonance with the International Treaties on
Drugs under the UN Convention of 1961, 1971, and 1988. Now, when we speak of narcotics under this treaty, it would
mean "prohibited" drugs. When we speak of psychotropic under the same convention, it would mean "regulated" drugs.
In this particular proposal, we did not make any distinction anymore. Why? Because whether these are regulated,
whether these are prohibited, these are considered as dangerous drugs unless authorized by law. That a patient, for
example, is in need of some drugs, morphine, for example, then that would be another story.34
xxxx
Senator De Castro. Mr. President, on page 3, line 3, the term used is "dangerous," while under our present law,
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the term used is "prohibited." May we know from the sponsor the distinction
between the words "prohibited" and "dangerous."
Senator Barbers. Yes, Mr. President. Under Republic Act No. 6425, there is a distinction between prohibited drugs and
regulated drugs. When we speak of prohibited drugs, it would mean that there is no prescription needed. While in the
regulated drugs, a prescription is needed in order to purchase that kind of drug from the drugstore.
Under the present bill, Mr. President, we removed the distinction and we came up with the term "dangerous drugs"
instead of classifying these drugs into prohibited and regulated ones. Why? Because there are prohibited drugs that
sometimes are also being dispensed with prescription, like for example, morphine and opium. These could be used as
pain relievers. There are also regulated ones which become prohibited drugs when we use a proportion which could not
be considered as therapeutic in nature.
Senator De Castro. Therapeutic and that includes marijuana, Mr. President?
Senator Barbers. That is correct, Mr. President, although marijuana is not dispensed in drugstores. We classify
marijuana under RA 6425 as a prohibited drug, while under this measure marijuana is considered as a dangerous
drug.35
xxxx
Senator Cayetano. Mr. President, I also note that there is no definition of "regulated drug" at least in my cursory
examination. Has the good sponsor deleted the provision of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 or Republic Act No. 6425
where there is a definition of "regulated drug?" And if so, I just want to find out why this particular definition of what
constitutes a regulated drug is not included in this bill?
Senator Barbers. That is correct, Mr. President. In the present measure, we already deleted prohibited drugs as well as
regulated drugs. We came up with one item only from regulated, from prohibited, to dangerous drugs. That would be the
classification now. Whether it is regulated or prohibited, it is of no moment to us. What is important is that we define
dangerous drugs.
Senator Cayetano. No. The reason I asked that, Mr. President, is, under the present law, "regulated drugs" is defined
and the penalties for transgression of the requirements of getting a regulated drug is different from the transgression of
committing any act in relation to what constitutes purely dangerous drugs.
So this is the reason I am inquiring because it is important. Regulated drugs per se are not dangerous drugs, regulated
in the sense that it may be dispensed by a certified physician or members of the medical or dental profession.

24

The only transgression or penalty that may be included on regulated drug is, for instance, if one imports regulated drugs
without the necessary authority from the present Dangerous Drugs Board, and also the manufacture as well as the sale
of the same.
So that is the reason I am inquiring, Mr. President.
Senator Barbers. I have with me here, Mr. President, a definition of a "regulated drug," but this is applicable under
Republic Act No. 6425. Under my proposal, we deleted the definition. We concentrated on dangerous drugs.
Senator Cayetano. So am I correct then that the omission is deliberate, but it does not repeal the provision of Republic
Act No. 6425 which is known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972," vis-a-vis the regulated drugs? It does not.
1avvphi1

Senator Barbers. Mr. President, this proposed measure is practically a repeal of Republic Act No. 6425. 36
From the above-quoted, it is clear that the deliberate elimination of the classification of dangerous drugs is the main
reason that under R.A. 9165, the possession of any kind of dangerous drugs is now penalized under the same section.
The deliberations, however, do not address a case wherein an individual is caught in possession of different kinds of
dangerous drugs. In the present case, petitioner was charged under two Informations, one for illegal possession of six
(6) plastic heat-sealed sachets containing dried marijuana leaves weighing more or less 3.865 grams and the other for
illegal possession of three (3) plastic heat-sealed sachets containing shabuweighing more or less 0.327 gram. Under
Section 11 of R.A. 9165, the corresponding penalty for each charge, based on the weight of the dangerous drugs
confiscated, is imprisonment for twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum,
and a fine of three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00). The trial court imposed a single penalty of imprisonment for
twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and a fine of three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00), while the CA modified it by imposing the corresponding penalty for each charge.
Absent any clear interpretation as to the application of the penalties in cases such as the present one, this Court shall
construe it in favor of the petitioner for the subject provision is penal in nature. It is a well-known rule of legal
hermeneutics that penal or criminal laws are strictly construed against the state and liberally in favor of the
accused.37 Thus, an accused may only be convicted of a single offense of possession of dangerous drugs if he or she
was caught in possession of different kinds of dangerous drugs in a single occasion. If convicted, the higher penalty
shall be imposed, which is still lighter if the accused is convicted of two (2) offenses having two (2) separate penalties.
This interpretation is more in keeping with the intention of the legislators as well as more favorable to the accused.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated April 11, 2008 of petitioner Raul David is herebyDENIED.
Consequently, the Decision dated August 31, 2007 and Resolution dated February 20, 2008 of the Court of Appeals are
hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the penalty of imprisonment for Twelve (12) years & one (1) day, as
minimum, to Fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) be
imposed.
SO ORDERED.

25