THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 207229. September 20, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . SIEGFRED

CABELLON y CABAÑERO , accused-appellant.

DECISION

LEONEN , J : p

The marking and identi cation of the seized dangerous drug is an essential part
of the chain of custody. Absent this step, a gap is created which casts a shadow of
doubt on the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug presented as evidence,
creating reasonable doubt, which must be resolved in favor of the accused.
This reviews the August 30, 2012 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
No. CEB-CR HC No. 01081, a rming the conviction of accused-appellant Siegfred
Cabellon y Cabañero (Cabellon) for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
This Court restates the facts as found by the lower courts.
In an Information 2 dated April 28, 2006, Cabellon was charged with violation of
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165:
That on or about the 13th day of April 2006 at about 7:30 P.M. more or
less, in Bulacao, City of Talisay, Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, did then and there
sell and dispose One (1) heat-sealed plastic packet of white crystalline
substance containing Methylamphetamine (sic) hydrochloride locally known as
"SHABU," weighing 0.03 gram, a dangerous drugs.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Upon arraignment, Cabellon pleaded not guilty. 4 Trial on the merits ensued.
Evidence for the prosecution showed that on April 13, 2006, a buy-bust operation
was planned to capture Cabellon in the act of selling drugs. At 7:30 p.m., PO2 Junar Rey
Barangan (PO2 Barangan), PO3 Rey Bucao (PO3 Bucao), and PO3 Reynato Abellar (PO3
Abellar) went to Sitio Jawod, Barangay Bulacao, Talisay City to commence the buy-bust
operation. The police officers had a poseur-buyer with them. 5
The asset poseur-buyer transacted with Cabellon in an alley, while the police
o cers observed them from a distance. Once they saw the poseur-buyer scratch his
head, their pre-approved signal, the police o cers descended upon Cabellon, who then
ran away upon noticing the approaching officers. 6
Cabellon ran and hid inside a nearby house and the police o cers followed him.
The police o cers stumbled upon three (3) men sni ng shabu inside the house, one
(1) of whom they apprehended while the other two (2) managed to escape. The police
o cers caught up with Cabellon inside the house, whom they thereafter frisked. They
recovered the marked P100.00 and P50.00 bills from him. 7

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 After Cabellon's arrest, the poseur-buyer handed over the sachet of shabu he
purchased from Cabellon to PO3 Bucao. 8
That same date, a sachet marked with "SCC 04/13/06" was turned over to the
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for examination. The Request for
Laboratory Examination was received by a certain PO1 Domael. 9
P/S Insp. Mutchit G. Salinas (P/S Insp. Salinas), a forensic chemist, con rmed
executing Chemistry Report No. D-698-2006. She testi ed that she had examined a
heat-sealed plastic sachet of white crystalline substance labelled with "SCC 04/13/06."
The chemistry report bore the signatures of P/S Insp. Salinas and P/Supt. Myrna P.
Areola. The specimen weighed 0.03 grams and tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu). 1 0
Cabellon was the only defense witness and he denied selling shabu to the
poseur-buyer. 1 1 CAIHTE

He claimed that on April 13, 2006, at about 3:30 p.m., he was buying barbecue
when he saw his aunt, Jane Cabellon, crying. He asked her why she was crying and he
told her that she had a ght with someone. He approached and slapped the lady his
aunt had a ght with. The lady then warned him that he would be arrested for what he
had done to her. 1 2
Later that evening, at the barbecue station, 1 3 he was arrested and bodily
searched by some police o cers; however, nothing was recovered from him. He
claimed that he was not informed by the arresting o cers of the offense he
supposedly violated. 1 4
Cabellon was then brought to the police station and was asked to call
somebody. He was also asked to pay for his release and for the settlement of the case
led against him. He was unable to pay or give a gift and declined to make the phone
call; hence, he was charged and a case was filed against him. 1 5
On October 27, 2008, the Regional Trial Court 1 6 found that the prosecution was
able to prove all the elements for the illegal sale of shabu. 1 7 Furthermore, PO3 Bucao
and PO2 Barangan identi ed the sachet sold by Cabellon to the poseur-buyer. The
seized sachet's chain of custody from the time Cabellon was arrested until it was
presented as evidence to the court was accounted for. 1 8 The fallo of the trial court
Decision read:
ACCORDINGLY, this court nds the accused GUILTY as charged and
sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a ne
of [P]500,000.00.
Exhibit "B" is forfeited in favor of the State for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. 1 9
Cabellon led an appeal before the Court of Appeals and raised several errors.
He claimed that the trial court erred in upholding the validity of his arrest despite the
blatant violation of his right against unreasonable searches and when it relied on the
weakness of the defense evidence rather than on the strength of the prosecution
evidence. Additionally, he averred that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. 2 0
On August 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals 2 1 dismissed the appeal and upheld
the trial court decision.
The Court of Appeals held that the elements for the illegal sale of shabu were
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 duly proven by the prosecution. 2 2
The Court of Appeals also downplayed the supposed necessity of presenting the
poseur-buyer as a witness in court since the testimonies of the members of the
apprehending team had already su ciently established the illegal sale between
Cabellon and the poseur-buyer. 2 3
The Court of Appeals likewise waived the stringent application of Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165, considering the circumstances obtaining in the case. The Court
of Appeals emphasized that the defense never questioned the integrity of the evidence
during trial and only did so upon appeal. 2 4 The fallo of the Court of Appeals Decision
read:
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the appeal is DENIED. The decision dated
October 27, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 58, Cebu City in
Criminal Case No. CBU-76737 convicting Siegfred Cabellon y Cabañero for the
crime of Sale of Dangerous Drugs penalized under Section 5 of Republic Act No.
9165 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 2 5
Cabellon led a Notice of Appeal 2 6 on October 4, 2012, which was noted and
given due course by the Court of Appeals in its April 29, 2013 Resolution. 2 7
In its August 7, 2013 Resolution, 2 8 this Court noti ed the parties that they may
le their respective supplemental briefs. Both parties manifested 2 9 that they were
dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief.
Cabellon alleges that the supposed illegal sale was never proven because the
poseur-buyer was not presented to attest to the alleged sale. Furthermore, the police
o cers were positioned at a distance where they could not have seen the sale and
could merely rely on the poseur-buyer's signal. Cabellon insisted that the fact of the
sale was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. 3 0
Cabellon also emphasizes that the police o cers did not comply with the
mandatory requirements under Section 21, paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 9165,
requiring the apprehending team to immediately physically inventory and photograph
the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from media or the
Department of Justice, and any elected official. 3 1
Cabellon then points out that the prosecution was unable to show an unbroken
chain of custody. PO3 Bucao testi ed that the poseur-buyer handed him the sachet
after Cabellon was arrested, but he never testi ed as to whom he gave it next or who
marked it. 3 2 Lastly, Cabellon asserts that he was not informed either of his
constitutional rights upon his arrest or the reason for his arrest or detention. 3 3
On the other hand, the prosecution claims that the poseur-buyer's failure to
testify was not fatal to the case since PO3 Bucao testified that he saw the sale. 3 4
The prosecution argues that there was substantial compliance with Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165 because the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item
was properly preserved. The prosecution maintains that the circumstances surrounding
the arrest, where he was arrested in a house with three (3) persons high on drugs, made
it impossible to mark and inventory the sachet on the spot. 3 5 The prosecution also
avers that the supposed violations of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 were only
raised for the first time on appeal. 3 6
Finally, the prosecution denies that Cabellon was found guilty based on his weak
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 defense and holds that it has proven the evidentiary integrity of the seized sachet
proving Cabellon's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It asserts that the prosecution
witnesses have established Cabellon's guilt with their straightforward and candid
testimonies. 3 7
The only issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellant
Siegfred Cabellon's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the non-
observance of the required procedure under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
This Court grants the appeal and acquits Siegfred Cabellon y Cabañero.
In order to sustain a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, these two
(2) elements must be established by the prosecution: "(1) proof that the transaction or
sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug
as evidence." 3 8
To prove that the illegal sale of shabu took place, the prosecution presented PO3
Bucao and PO2 Barangan, two (2) of the police o cers who were part of the buy-bust
operation team which apprehended the accused.
Both PO3 Bucao 3 9 and PO2 Barangan 4 0 testi ed that they had seen the
accused talk with the poseur-buyer before the latter scratched his head, signalling that
the transaction had taken place. The marked money was recovered from the accused,
4 1 while the poseur-buyer turned over the sachet with shabu he had bought from the
accused to PO3 Bucao. 4 2
While the prosecution may have proven that a transaction took place, it was not
as convincing in its presentation of the alleged corpus delicti as evidence.
People v. Jaafar 4 3 underscored the importance of presenting the actual illicit
drug or corpus delicti recovered as evidence since its existence is essential to convict
the accused. Thus:
In all prosecutions for violations of Republic Act No. 9165, the corpus
delicti is the dangerous drug itself. Its existence is essential to a judgment of
conviction. Hence, the identity of the dangerous drug must be clearly
established.
Narcotic substances are not readily identi able. To determine their
composition and nature, they must undergo scienti c testing and analysis.
Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or
contamination. It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized from
the accused are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in
court as evidence. The chain of custody, as a method of authentication, ensures
that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of seized drugs are removed. 4 4
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides the manner by which law
enforcement officers should handle seized dangerous drugs: DETACa

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Con scated, 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 con scated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in
the following manner:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and con scation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
con scated 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[.]
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165
further provides:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Con scated, 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 con scated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in
the following manner:
(a) The apprehending o cer/team having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
con scation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
were con scated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public o cial who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall
be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at
the nearest police station or at the nearest o ce of the
apprehending o cer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with
these requirements under justi able grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending o cer/team, shall not render void
and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]
(Emphasis supplied)
While it may be true that strict compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No.
9165 may be excused under justi able grounds, the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items must still be preserved by the apprehending officer.
This Court is not convinced that the prosecution was able to prove the identity of
the shabu supposedly seized from the accused.
PO3 Bucao claimed that the poseur-buyer turned over to him the sachet
purchased from the accused and that he had custody of the sachet until he reached the
police station. He then handed the sachet to PO3 Abellar, who supposedly prepared the
request for the chemical analysis of the seized item. However, PO3 Bucao failed to
identify who placed the markings on the sachet:
(Pros. Canta)
Q: How many packs of shabu did your poseur[-]buyer handed it (sic) to you?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 (PO3 Bucao)
A: Only one.
Q: Who kept this pack of shabu from the place of the arrest to the police
station?
A: Myself.
Q: What did you do with this pack of shabu that you get (sic) from the
accused?
A: After we reach in (sic) our station I gave it to PO3 Abellar the one pack of
shabu.
Q: What did PO3 Abellar do with this one pack of shabu?
A: He made a request to the PNP Crime Lab for chemical analysis.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: I am showing to you this one pack of white crystalline substance with
labeling "SCC" the date thereon, is that the evidence you are referring to?
A: Yes[,] sir.
Q: Who then made the marking "SCC" and the date?
A: I am not sure who made the marking. 4 5
Even PO2 Barangan could not confirm who placed the markings on the sachet:
(PROS. CANTA)
Q: I am showing to you this one pack of white crystalline substance marked
as Exhibit B, with markings SCC with a date, can you tell us if this is the
same evidence that your (sic) recovered from the accused?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why are you sure?
A: Because this is the one PO3 Bucao showed to me.
Q: And there are markings in this plastic pack containing this small plastic
pack of shabu SCC and the date 04/13/06, who made that marking if you
know?
A: I do not know[,] sir. 4 6
People v. Nandi 4 7 expounded on the four (4) links that should be established by
the prosecution to constitute an unbroken chain of custody:
[F]irst, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from
the accused by the apprehending o cer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug
seized by the apprehending o cer to the investigating o cer; third, the turnover
by the investigating o cer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 4 8
Undeniably, a noticeable gap exists in the chain of custody with the prosecution's
failure to present evidence that the seized sachet was actually marked by any of the
three (3) apprehending officers.
The prosecution likewise did not present evidence that the seized sachet was
inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused or his representative, a
representative from the media or the Department of Justice, and an elected public
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 o cial. Neither did it provide an explanation as to why the police o cers did not follow
the requirements provided under the law.
PO3 Bucao also testi ed that he turned over the unmarked seized sachet to PO3
Abellar, who then prepared the request to the Philippine National Police for chemical
analysis. 4 9 However, a careful review of the Request for Laboratory Examination 5 0
dated April 13, 2006 shows that not only did it refer to a marked sachet, it was also
signed by P/Superintendent Romeo Pagal Perigo, not PO3 Abellar, who supposedly
prepared it.
The prosecution utterly failed to proffer evidence on who placed the markings on
the sachet. Furthermore, it also failed to account for the seized sachet's transfer from
PO3 Bucao to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for laboratory
examination, creating another gap in the chain of custody.
This blatant lack of compliance with the safeguards established in Republic Act
No. 9165 is made even more egregious by the fact that the seized sachet only
contained 0.03 grams 5 1 of shabu, no more than a grain of rice. The danger of
tampering and planting of evidence was, thus, heightened, which should have put the
lower courts on guard and not have so easily relied on the presumption of regularity
accorded to police o cers in the performance of their o cial acts. As this Court
stated in People v. Holgado: 5 2
While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground
for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting
compliance with Section 21. In Mallillin v. People , this court said that "the
likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest
when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in
nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives."
53

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Decision dated August 30, 2012 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CEB-CR HC No. 01081 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE .
Accused-appellant Siegfred Cabellon y Cabañero is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of
the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately
RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is directed to report to this Court, within ve (5) days from receipt of this
decision, the action he has taken.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the seized sachet of
methamphetamine hydrochloride to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in
accordance with law.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately. aDSIHc

SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Bersamin, Martires and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 92-105. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella
Maxino and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Reyes and Zenaida T.
Galapate-Laguilles of the Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
2. Id. at 10-11.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 3. Id. at 10.
4. Id. at 51, RTC Decision.

5. Id. at 52, RTC Decision.

6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 53, RTC Decision.
9. Id. at 51-52.

10. Id. at 51 and 53. RTC referred to the substance as "methylamphetamine hydrochloride."
11. Id. at 53-54, RTC Decision.
12. Id.
13. TSN dated September 23, 2008, p. 4. TSN also refers to the date as "September 23, 2007."

14. Id. at 54.

15. Id.
16. Id. at 51-58. The Decision, docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-76737, was penned by
Presiding Judge Gabriel T. Ingles of Branch 58, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City.
17. Id. at 55-57.
18. Id. at 57.
19. Id. at 58.

20. Id. at 31.

21. Id. at 92-105.
22. Id. at 95-99.
23. Id. at 100-101.
24. Id. at 101-104.

25. Id. at 105.

26. Id. at 106-107.
27. Id. at 111.
28. Rollo, p. 22.
29. Id. at 23-26 and 27-28.

30. CA rollo, pp. 37-38.

31. Id. at 38-39.
32. Id. at 39-42.
33. Id. at 48-49.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 34. Id. at 74.
35. Id. at 76-77.
36. Id. at 78-79.

37. Id. at 79-81.

38. People v. Morales , 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division] citing
People v. Darisan, 597 Phil. 479 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First Division].
39. TSN dated April 24, 2007, p. 4.
40. TSN dated February 13, 2007, pp. 5-6.
41. Id. at 7.
42. TSN dated April 24, 2007, pp. 5-6.

4 3 . G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?

file=/jurisprudence/2017/january2017/219829.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

44. Id. at 7, citing People v. Simbahon , 449 Phil. 74 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First
Division] and Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
45. TSN dated April 24, 2007, p. 6.

46. TSN dated February 13, 2007, p. 9.

47. 639 Phil. 134 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
48. Id. at 144-145, citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
49. TSN dated April 24, 2007, p. 6.

50. RTC records, p. 8.

51. Id. at 9.
52. 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen].
53. Id. at 99, citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com