3Repnblic of t~e llbilipptnes

~upren1e <!Court
;iflllantla

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 252902

PHILIPPINES,
Present:
Plaintiff-Appellee,
PERLAS-BERNABE, SAJ,
Chairperson,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
M. LOPEZ,
- versus- ROSARIO, and
J. LOPEZ,* JJ.

SPOlALEXANDER Promulgated:
ESTABILLO y PALARA,

Accused-Appellant.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

The Case

This appeal assails the fo llowing dispositions of the Court of Appeals

in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08244 entitled People of the Philippines v. SPO 1
Alexander Estabillo y Palara:

1. Decision I dated April 26, 20 19 affirming the conviction of SPO I

Alexander Estabillo y Palara for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165; and

* Designated as add itional member per S.O. No. 2822 dated April 7, 202 1.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B.
Dimaampao and Manuel M. Barrios; rollo, p. 3-3 I.

I
Decision 2 G.R. No. 252902

2. Resolution2 dated October 9, 2019 denying reconsideration.

Antecedents

Under two (2) separate Informations dated July 13,2010, appellant

was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, RA 9165, 3 thus: 4

Criminal Case No. 17172-D-PSG

That on or about June 14, 2010, at Barangay Ugong, Pasig City and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously have in his possession, custody, and
control the following: two (2) bricks sealed with packaging tape, each
weighing more or less 1078.89 grams and 1041.57 grams of cocaine, a
dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 17173-D-PSG

That on or about June 14, 2010, at Barangay U gong, Pasig City and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully.
unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away to
another and distribute to SPOl Leonardo G. Taldo, of the Philippine
National Police-Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (PNP-
AIDSOTF), who acted as poseur buyer, two (2) bricks sealed with
packaging tape, each weighing more or less 1046.22 grams and 1065.75
grams of cocaine, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. 5 Trial

ensued.

During the trial, forensic chemist PSI Mark Alain B. Ballesteros (PSI
Ballesteros), SPO2 Leonardo Taldo (SPO2 Taldo), 6 PO3 Lawrence Perida
(PO3 Perida), SPO3 Miguel Ngo (SPO3 Ngo), and SPO3 Glenn Marlon
Caluag (SPO3 Caluag)7 testified for the prosecution. Meanwhile, appellant,
his daughter Carla Mendoza (Carla), and Dennis Perillo (Perillo) of GMA 7
News and Current Affairs testified for the defense. 8

2
Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B.
Dimaampao and Manuel M. Barrios; CA rollo, p. 321.
3
AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHER WISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS
AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
4
Rollo, p. 4.
5 Id. at 5.
6
Also appears as SPO I Taldo in the records.
7
Also appears as SPO I Caiuag in the records.
8
Rollo, p. 5.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 252902

Version of the Prosecution

On June 13, 2010, P/SSupt. Eduardo P. Acierto (P/SSupt. Acierto)

received a repo1i from a confidential informant regarding the drug activities
of a certain "Alex", a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
assigned at the Ninoy Aquino International Airpo1i. According to the
confidential informant, "Alex" operated in Makati City and had in his
possession a huge amount of cocaine. Acting on the information, P/SSupt.
Acierto instructed Police Superintendent Ismael G. Fajardo, Jr. (P/Supt.
Fajardo) to conduct a buy-bust operation against "Alex". Thus, P/Supt.
Fajardo designated Police Inspector Jay James Nepomuceno as the team
leader, SPO2 Taldo as the poseur-buyer, and SPO3 Ngo and PO3 Perida as
the arresting officers. Meanwhile, the confidential informant arranged a test
buy with "Alex" for the following day. 9

On June 14, 2010, around 8:20 in the evening, the buy bust team,
together with the confidential informant arrived at A Venue along Makati
Avenue, Makati City. There, the confidential informant introduced SPO2
Taldo to "Alex", later identified as appellant Estabillo. Appellant informed
SPO2 Taldo that the price of cocaine was Pl ,500,000.00 per kilo. SPO2 Taldo
ordered four (4) kilos of cocaine and asked for a sample. Appellant gave SPO2
Taldo a gram of suspected cocaine, for which the latter paid Pl ,500.00. Before
they separated, they agreed that appellant would contact the confidential
informant once the four (4) kilos of cocaine becomes available. 10

SPO2 Taldo brought the sample to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
examination which yielded positive for cocaine. 11

On June 15 , 2010, around 10:30 in the morning, SPO2 Tai do received

news from the confidential informant that the four (4) kilos of cocaine he
ordered from appellant was already available. Too, SPO2 Taldo was to pay
appellant P6,000,000.00 at Mercury Drugstore, Las Fiestas Drive, Frontera
Verde, Barangay Ugong, Pasig City at 11 o'clock that evening. Thus, the buy
bust team prepared for the operation. 12

Around 6 o'clock in the evening, P/Supt. Fajardo presided over a final

briefing at the PNP-AIDSOTF. He gave SPO2 Taldo six (6) P500.00 bills
dusted with ultraviolet powder. The bills were placed on top of 60 bundles of
boodle money inside a striped red paper bag. The buy bust team agreed that
SPO2 Taldo would dial SPO3 Ngo's mobile number once the transaction had
been consummated. · They also coordinated with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) after the final briefing. 13

9
Id at 5-6.
10
Id. at 6.
11 Id.
12
Id. at 7.
13 Id.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 252902

Around 9 o'clock in the evening, the team proceeded to the area of

operation. About two (2) hours later, appellant arrived on board a white and
silver Mitsubishi Strada with plate number XDH 4 74. Appellant stopped in
front of SPO2 Taldo and told the latter to board the front passenger seat of his
car. 14

Inside the vehicle, appellant handed to SPO2 Taldo a maroon-brown

shoebox labeled Otto containing two (2) bricks of suspected cocaine. In
exchange, SPO2 Taldo handed appellant the boodle money. Before appellant
could start counting its contents, SPO2 Taldo dialed SPO3 Ngo's number. 15

The other members of the team rushed to the vehicle and a1Tested
appellant. PO3 Perida recovered the boodle money from appellant while
SPO2 Taldo proceeded to mark the two (2) bricks of suspected cocaine in the
Otto shoebox with LPP 06152315 2010 and LPP 1 06152315 2010 together
with his signature. 16 Upon further search of the vehicle, PO3 Perida recovered
a yellow Mario D'Boro box containing two (2) more bricks of suspected
cocaine from behind the driver seat which he marked LPP2 061523 15 20 I 0
and LPP3 06152315 2010 with his signature. 17 The seized items were then
placed in front of the vehicle for the witnesses to see. 18

The marking was done in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Felix

Santos (Kagawad Santos) and two (2) representatives from the media, Erika
Tapalla (Tapalla) from ABC 5 and Perillo from GMA 7. An inventory of the
seized items was then prepared in the presence of appellant and the witnesses.
Photographs were taken during the marking and inventory. No prosecutor
from the Department of Justice (DOJ) was available to witness the inventory
that night. 19

On June 16, 2010, around 1 o'clock in the morning, after the marking
and inventory, SPO2 Taldo and PO3 Perida turned over the seized items to
the investigator SPO3 Caluag. Upon concluding his investigation in half an
hour, SPO3 Caluag turned over the two (2) boxes containing two (2) bricks
each of suspected cocaine to PCI Paul Ed C. Ortiz (PCI Ortiz)2° of the PNP
Crime Laboratory. All these happened at the place of a1Test. Subsequently, at
2:55 in the morning, .PCI Ortiz turned over the suspected cocaine to PSI
Ballesteros of the PNP Crime Laboratory for testing. Per C hemistry Repo1t
No. D-43-10, all four (4) bricks tested positive for cocaine. 2 1

14
Id. at 8.
1s Id.
16
CA rollo, p. 23.
17
Id
18
Ro!!o, p. 9.
I? Id. at 9-10.
20
Also appears as Major Ortiz .in the records.
21
Rollo, p. 10.

!{
Decision 5 G.R. No. 252902

Version of the Defense

Appellant denied the charges. 22

On June 15, 2010, around 8 o'clock in the evening, he was with his
daughter Carla at SM Marikina. While they were about to leave the parking
area, he noticed three (3) manned vehicles parked near his car but didn't think
much of it. When they got out of the parking area, however, the three (3)
vehicles he saw earlier started following them. Worried, he dropped off his
daughter at the corner of Ligaya and Marcos Highway and proceeded to
Ortigas. 23

The three (3) vehicles continued following him, thus, he decided not to
pass through the flyover and go to the well-lighted area ofTiendesitas instead.
Suddenly, one of the vehicles cut his path and blocked his way. The
passengers of the three (3) vehicles alighted, poked their guns at him, and
dragged him on board a grey Mitsubishi Lancer. From inside, he saw that
some of those who were following him had opened his vehicle and were
searching it. He also noticed that other personalities arrived at the scene,
including some members of the media. After some time, he was dragged out
of the Mitsubishi Lancer and brought in front of his vehicle where he saw
various items placed on top of the hood. He denied ownership of said items. 24

Ruling of the Trial Court

By Decision25 dated December 7, 2015 , the Regional Trial Court,

Branch 151, Pasig City rendered a verdict of conviction, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered as follows:

1 Re: Criminal Case No. 17173-D, thi s Court finds the accused,
ALEXANDER ESTABILLO y PALARA, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, and accordingly, hereby sente nces him to
suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and pay a fine in the
amount of Ten Million pesos (Pl0,000,000.00).

2 Re: Criminal Case No. 17172-D, this Court finds the accused,
ALEXANDER ESTABILLO y PALARA, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11 , Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, and accordingly, hereby sentences him to
suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and pay a fine in the
amount of Ten Million pesos (Pl0,000,000.00).

22 Id
23
Id at I I.
24
/ c/. atll-1 2 .
25 CA rollo, p. 12 6.
 Decision 6 G.R. No. 252902

The Otlicer-In-Charge/Branch Clerk of Court is ordered to

transfer the possession and custody of the dangerous drugs subject of
these cases to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for its
disposal in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.

It held that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were all
present, considering that appellant was arrested following a buy bust ,
operation. Too, the arresting officers recovered two (2) bricks of cocaine at
the back of appellant's driver seat following his lawful arrest. Thus, appellant
was also convicted of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The trial court
further held that the prosecution sufficiently established all four links in the
chain of custody. 26

The trial court denied reconsideration on February 4, 2016. 27

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

On appeal, 28 appellant faulted the trial court for rendering a verdict of

conviction. He argued:

First. He was illegally arrested. The arresting officers did not have
probable cause to arrest him since at that time, they were still unaware of
whether the bricks inside the Otto shoebox truly contained cocaine. None of
the arresting officers had personal knowledge of the actual contents of the
shoebox. 29

Second. The arresting officers did not have reason to arrest appellant
other than SPO2 Taldo's call to SPO3 Ngo. Said call was insufficient to
establish probable cause for his warrantless arrest. 30

Third. The prosecution failed to show that he dusted pos1t1ve for

ultraviolet powder after he allegedly took possession of the buy bust money. 31

Fourth. GMA 7 repo1ier Perillo denied seeing any actual cocaine

during his coverage of the incident. 32

Fifth. There was no DOJ representative present during the inventory

and photograph. 33

2
''Id at 161-170.
27
Id at 172.
28
IJ. at 35.
29
Id. at 43-46.
30
Id. at 51 -53.
31
Id. at 50-51 .
32
Id. at 46-50.
33
Id. at 58-59.

;f
Decision 7 G.R. No. 252902

Sixth. There is doubt on whether items examined by PSI Ballesteros

were the same items seized from appellant. For records show that there were
two (2) requests for laboratory examination made concerning the same items
allegedly seized from him. On the one hand, PSI Ballesteros testified that PCI
Ortiz delivered the seized items to him. On the other hand, one of the requests
for laboratory examination stated that the seized items were delivered by
SPO3 Caluag. 34

Seventh. The prosecution failed to adduce documentary proof of

compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165. At any rate, PCI Ortiz did not testify
during the trial, breaking the link between the investigator and the forensic
chemist. 35

Finally. the trial court did not perform an ocular inspection of the seized
items within 72 hours as required under Section 21 of RA 9165 .36

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on the other hand, defended
the verdict of conviction. 37 It maintained that all the elements of illegal sale
and possession of dangerous drugs were present. 38 It also refuted appellant's
arguments, thus:

First. The arresting officers had every right to believe the four ( 4)
bricks recovered from appellant contained cocaine, considering that they
earlier performed a test buy which yielded positive results. More, there was
already a meeting between the minds of appellant and SPO2 Taldo concerning
the sale of four 4 kilos of cocaine; the arresting officers did not have reason
to doubt that appellant would not uphold his end of the bargain. At any rate,
an on the spot laboratory examination of the drug items is ludicrous and
unrealistic. 39

Second. The call to SPO3 Ngo was the buy bust team's pre-dete1111ined
signal for the consummation of the sale. Thus, when SPO2 Taldo dialed SPO3
Ngo's number, the buy bust team had probable cause to believe that the sale
of cocaine had in fact been consummated, and that appellant committed a
crime. 40

34
id. at 54-56.
35
Id. at 55-58.
6
' Id. at 50.
37
Id. at 194.
38
/cl. at 203-208.
39
Id. at 208-209.
40
Id at 2 10.

I
 Decision 8 G.R. No. 252902

Third. The prosecution's failure to submit the results of the ultraviolet

test did not weaken the case of the prosecution. For the use of ultraviolet
powder is not even required in buy bust operations. 41

Fourth. Whether Perillo actually saw any off-white powdered

substance is immaterial. He only had to witness and identify the items seized
from appellant. It is up to the forensic chemist to determine whether these
items are positive for drugs after performing qualitative examinations
thereon. 42

Fifth. The arresting officers sufficiently explained the absence of a

representative from the DOJ during the buy bust operation. Despite earnest
efforts from the arresting officers to secure the presence of such witness, they
failed because there was no duty prosecutor that night. 43

Sixth. PSI Ballesteros explained the supposed double request for

laboratory examination. He testified that it was PCI 01iiz who delivered the
seized items to him while the results were to be released to SP03 Caluag as
the actual requesting patiy. 44

Seventh. The prosecution established that the arresting officers

complied with the chain of custody rule, hence, the integrity and evidentiary
value of thee seized items were duly preserved. Documentary evidence is not
necessary to prove transfers of custody; testimonial evidence would suffice. 45

Finally. The trial court's failure to perform an ocular inspection did not
weaken the case of the prosecution. For the sole purpose of an ocular
inspection is to allow the presentation of representative samples during the
trial rather than the entirety of the items seized, allowing he immediate
destruction of the contraband. Thus, ocular inspection is unnecessary in the
present case where the entire bricks of cocaine were presented during the trial,
not just their representative samples. 46

Subsequently, appellant filed his supplemental briet: 47 arguing that the

buy bust operation could not be considered valid since the prosecution did not
offer the testimony of any of the insulating witnesses during the trial. He

41
ld.at2l5 .
42 Id. at 209.
43
Id. at 2 ! 6.
41
' Id. at 214.
45 Id.
46
Id. at 2 16.
47
Id. at 235.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 252902

insisted on his innocence, citing the arresting officers non-compliance w ith

Section 21, RA 9165 and People v. Lim48 as bases.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Under Decision 49 dated April 26, 2019, the Comi of Appeals affirmed.
For one, appellant was validly a1Tested sans judicial warrant as he was caught
inflagrante delicto selling two (2) bricks of cocaine. The consequent search
of his vehicle which yielded two (2) more bricks of cocaine was therefore
5
°
legal. For another, the prosecution established the elements of illegal sale
and possession of dangerous drugs were duly established through an unbroken
chain of custody over the seized items. 51

The Comi of Appeals denied reconsideration on October 9, 2019. 52

Present Appeal

Appellant now seeks the reversal of the verdict of conviction anew. By

Resolution dated February 3, 2021., the Court directed the parties to file their
supplemental briefs if they so desire. On even date, appellant filed his
supplemental brief5 3 which essentially reiterates his arguments before the
Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the OSG manifested that it will no longer be
submitting its supplemental brief.

Ruling

We affirm.

Appellant is barred from questioning the

validity of his arrest

Section 5, Rul e 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure enumerates

the instances when a warrantless is lawful, viz.:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a

private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

48
G.R. No . 23 1989, September 4, 20 18.
49
Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar 8.
Dimaampao and Manuel M. Barrios; rollo, p. 3.
50
Id at 15- 19.
51
Id. at 19-29.
52
Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B.
Dimaampao and Manue l M. Barrios; CA ro!lo, p. 32 1.
» Rollo, p. 39
 Decision 10 G.R. No. 252902

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is

actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (emphasis
added)

xxxx

Here, appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto on June 15, 2010,

following a buy-bust operation. As borne in the records, poseur-buyer SPO2
Leonardo Taldo paid appellant six (6) f>500.00 bills placed inside a bag of
boodle money, all dusted with ultraviolet powder, in exchange for two (2)
bricks of suspected cocaine placed inside a maroon-brown Otto shoebox.
Once the transaction got consummated, SPO2 Taldo performed the buy-bust
team's pre-arranged signal by calling the phone of SPO3 Ngo. Subsequently,
the rest of the buy-bust team rushed to arrest appellant and performed a search
on his vehicle, resulting in the seizure of yet another shoebox containing two
(2) more bricks of suspected cocaine. 54

Appellant nevertheless assails the validity of his warrantless arrest,

arguing on appeal that he could not have been caught in flagrante delicto
selling dangerous drugs since the arresting officers had no personal
knowledge on whether the four (4) bricks allegedly seized from him were
actually cocaine. Too, SPO2 Taldo's call to SPO3 Ngo was not sufficient basis
for probable cause that he had just committed a crime. 55

We are not persuaded.

Objections against the lawfulness of an arrest which are not raised

through a motion to quash before the accused enters his or her plea are deemed
waived, for the voluntary submission of an accused to the jurisdiction of the
court and his or her active participation during the trial cures any defect or
irregularity that may have attended an arrest. 56

Here, appellant questioned the validity of his arrest only on appeal

before the Comi of Appeals. By that time, he was already estopped from
raising any objection against the legality of his warrantless arrest. To be sure,
appellant willingly stipulated during the pre-trial that the trial court had
jurisdiction over his person. 57 He is therefore barred from claiming otherwise.

All the elements illegal sale and

possession of dangerous drugs were
present

Appellant is charged with unauthorized sale and possession of

dangerous drugs allegedly committed on June 15, 2010. The applicable law

54
Id at 8-9.
55
CA rollo, pp. 43-53.
56
Veridiano v. People, 810 Phil. 642, 654(2017).
57
CA rollo, p. 64.

f
 Decision 11 G.R. No. 252902

therefore is RA 9165 · before its amendment in 2014. These offenses are

defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11 of the same law, thus:

SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delive1y,

Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Pi-ecursors 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 (P 10,000,000.00) 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.

xxxx

SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life

imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (Pl0,000,000.00) shall be imposed
upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any
dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of
purity thereof:

xxxx

(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;

All the elements of both offenses are present here.

a. The elements of illegal sale of dangerous

drugs are present

To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the

prosecution must establish the following elements: (I) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 58

As the Comi of Appeals aptly noted, SP02 Taldo, the poseur-buyer,

gave a clear and accurate account of the transaction that occurred between him
and appellant on June 15, 2010, viz.: 59

Prosecutor Porte:
Q: When you were on board the Mitsubishi Strada, what happened
next?
A: He asked me where the money is.

Q: What was your reaction then?

A: I told him I want to see first the cocaine.

58
People v. Hilario. 823 Phil. 580, 594(2018).
59
TSN, SPOl Leonardo T 8ldo, April 3 0 2012, pp.14- 15 as cited in the Dec ision dated April 26, 2019.of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CR-CH No. 08244; See ro/!o, pp. 17-18.
 Decision 12 G.R. No. 252902

Q: What was the reaction of alias Alex?

A: He picked-up a brown shoe box with marking Otto, and he handed
it to me.

Q: What did you do with the box?

A: I opened the box.

Q: After you opened the box, did you see anything inside the box?
A: I saw the 2 bricks of suspected cocaine.

Q: After you saw the bricks of suspected cocaine, what was your
reaction?
A: I gave him the boodle money.

Q: Was alias Alex able to receive the boodle money?

A: Yes, sir.

Based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant was

the seller and SP02 Taldo was the buyer in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs
subject of this case. SP02 Taldo was supposed to purchase four ( 4) kilos of
cocaine but only two (2) bricks were delivered to him before the buy bust team
arrested appellant. In exchange for these two (2) bricks of cocaine, SP02
Taldo handed appellant a bag containing six (6) PS00 bills and 60 bundles of
boodle money dusted with ultraviolet powder as payment. The sale of illegal
drugs was therefore consummated.

Appellant argues though that if there was indeed a sale and he truly
received payment from SP02 Taldo, then he should have tested positive for
ultraviolet powder. The prosecution, however, did not offer in evidence any
proof of such positive result. 60

The argument utterly lacks merit.

The arresting officer's failure to test appellant for ultraviolet powder is

not fatal to the prosecution's case. For the law does not require buy-bust
money and boodle money used in anti-drug operations to be dusted with
ultraviolet powder for purposes of proving delivery of payment. This second
element may be established through other means, such as the testimony of the
poseur-buyer himself, as here. To reiterate, SP02 Taldo categorically testified
that he had delivered payment to appellant. Both the trial court and the Court
of Appeals found this testimony to be credible. The Court sees no cogent
reason to depart from this uniform factual findings of the courts below.

b. The elements of illegal possession of

dangerous drugs are present

In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be

shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified

°CA ro/lo, pp. 50-5 I.

6

1/
Decision 13 G.R. No. 252902

to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by

law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in
possession of the drug. 61

"Possession" under the contemplation of Section 11, RA 9165 may

either be actual or constructive. People v. Santos, 62 citing People v.
Lagman, 63 elucidates:

x x x Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but
also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in
the immediate possession or control of the accused. On the other hand,
constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and
control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and
control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is
not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise
control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is
shared with another.

Here, appellant had possession of the two (2) bricks of cocaine

recovered from behind the driver seat of his vehicle upon his arrest. Though
he did not have immediate physical possession of these items, he had
constructive possession thereof. Only he had dominion of these items. The
two (2) bricks of cocaine were under his control and disposal.

Appellant cannot deny knowledge of the two (2) additional bricks of

cocaine inside his car. Obviously, he was about to sell them to SPO2 Taldo to
complete the latter's order of four (4) kilos of cocaine. But before he could
physically deliver the rest of his merchandise to SPO2 Taldo, the buy bust
team moved in and effected his arrest.

All told, all the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous
drugs are present.

The prosecution sufficiently

established all the links in the chain
of custody

Finally, appellant asserts that the prosecution failed to establish an

unbroken chain of custody of the seized items. Otherwise stated, even
assuming the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs were
duly established, the prosecution nevertheless failed to prove that the items
supposedly seized from him were the same ones offered in evidence during
the trial.

61
People v. Hilario, supra note 58.
62
823 Phil. l 162, l ! 76-1177 (20 I 8).
63
593 Phil. 617,625 (2008).

I
Decision 14 G.R. No. 252902

We resolve.

In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the
offense. The prosecution, therefore, is tasked to establish that the substance
illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 64

To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must
account for each link in its chain of custody: 65 first, the seizure and marking
of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by
the forensic chemist to the court. 66

Section 21 of RA 9165 further prescribes the standard in preserving

the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of

Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources
of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals,Jnstruments/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 sunendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner:

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

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of

dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic
Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;

64
Jocson v. People, G.R. No. 199644, June 19, 2019.
65
As defined in Section l(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. I, Series of 2002:
xxxx
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 u;ansfer of custody .
were made in the course ofsafek~eping and use in court as evidence, and the.final disposition.[.]
xxxx
66
People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015).

I
Decision 15 G.R. No. 252902

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results,

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

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

xxxx

More, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 ordains:

Section 21. (a) The apprehending officer/tean1 having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence
of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest o.ffice of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items. (emphases added)

The Court finds that the prosecution sufficiently established

compliance with the afore-cited rules.
 Decision 16 G.R. No. 252902

a. First Link

The first link of the chain of custody is the seizure and marking of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused, as well as compliance with the
physical inventory and photograph requirements. 67

Marking is the starting point in the custodial link. It serves to separate

the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence
from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed, thus,
preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence. Marking though
should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon
confiscation to truly ensure that they are the same items which enter the chain
of custody. 68

After marking the seized items, the apprehending team shall conduct a
physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the
accused or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the DOJ, and any elected public official. 69 The purpose of the law in having
these witnesses is to prevent or insulate against and deter possible planting of
°
evidence. 7 Failure to comply with this three (3) witness rule, however, does
not ipso facto invalidate or render void the seizure and custody over the items
as long as the prosecution is able to show that (a) there is justifiable ground
for noncompliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved. 71

Here, SPO2 Taldo immediately marked the two (2) bricks of cocaine in
the Otto shoebox he received from appellant with LPP 06152315 2010 and
LPP 1 06152315 2010 together with his signature at the place of operation. 72
Meanwhile, PO3 Perida recovered a yellow Mario D'Boro box containing two
(2) more bricks of suspected cocaine from behind the driver seat which he,
too, immediately marked LPP2 06152315 2010 and LPP3 06152315 2010
with his signature. 73 The marking was done in the presence of Barangay
Kagawad Santos and two (2) representatives from the media, Tapalla from
ABC 5 and Perillo from GMA 7. 74 An inventory of the seized items was then
prepared in the presence of appellant and the witnesses. Photographs were
taken during the marking and inventory. 75

Dissatisfied, appellant bewails the absence of a representative from the

DOJ during the operation. He claims that the absence of a DOJ representative
during inventory is ground for acquittal. He, too, relies on the testimony of
Perillo wherein the latter denied seeing white powdered substance, albeit he

67
People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
68 Id.
69
Section 21 (]), RA 9165.
70
People v. Tanes, G.R. No. 240596, April 3, 2019.
71
Section 21(a), IRR of RA 9165.
72
CA rollo, p. 23.
,, Id.
74
Rollo, pp. 9-10.
75 Id.

I
Decision 17 G.R. No. 252902

saw the bricks wrapped in masking tape which were allegedly seized from
appellant, rendering the inventory questionable. 76

We are not persuaded.

For one, the arresting officers offered adequate explanation for the
absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory. As the Court of Appeals
keenly observed, the arresting officers exerted earnest effort to secure a
witness from the DOJ but to no avail:

x x x While there was no DOJ representative to witness the marking and

inventory, SPO 1 Taldo, P03 Perida and SP03 Ngo explained that, although
they exerted efforts to secure the presence of a representative from the DOJ,
there was no duty prosecutor at the time when they conducted the buy-bust
operation. The Court notes that it was close to midnight when the operation
took place.

Verily, there was simply no prosecutor from the DOJ who was
available to witness the inventory at that very late hour in the evening. We
also consider the immediacy of performing the marking and inventory of
seized items which ought riot be delayed. In People v. Maralit;77 the Court
took these twin circumstances into consideration in affirming the verdict of
conviction against therein appellant despite the absence of a DOJ
representative during the marking and inventory, viz.:

Here, it is evident from the records that the marking and

inventory of the two (2) bricks of marijuana were immediately
conducted at the place of the arrest, soon after these items were taken
from Maralit. Between Maralit's arrest and the marking of the items, only
ten (10) minutes passed, which the prosecution adequately justified as the
time spent by the apprehending team waiting for the arrival of the witnesses
to the marking and inventory.

Furthermore, during the marking and inventory of the seized items,

there were two (2) barangay officials and one (1) media representative
present. While there was no DOJ representative to witness the marking and
inventory, 101 Esmin and P02 Caalim explained that they were no
longer able to contact a representative from the DOJ because by the
time they were finished with the entrapment operation, it was beyond
office hours.

The Court does not lose sight of the fact that under various field
conditions, compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165 may not always be possible. Thus, while the presence of all these
witnesses are ordinarily required, non-compliance is excusable when the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly
preserved.· There should also be proper justification for the arresting

76
CA rollo, pp. 46-59.
77
838 Phil. 191, 208-209 (2018).

j
Decision 18 G.R. No. 252902

officers' failure to comply with the procedure under Section 21 ofR.A. No.
9165.

Considering that the police officers explained the absence of

the DOJ representative, coupled with the fact that they endeavored to
comply with the mandatory procedure by securing the presence of elected
officials and a representative from the media, their failure to strictly observe
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal to the case. The integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized evidence were nonetheless preserved
because there were other witnesses to the marking and inventory of the
seized bricks of marijuana. Two (2) barangay officials and a
representative from the media were present during this stage,
photographs were taken, and an inventory signed by these witnesses
was prepared. Furthe1more, while the inventory does not bear the signature
of Maralit, the photographs show that Maralit was present during the
marking and inventory of the seized items. (emphases added)

Clearly, the justifications offered in Mara/it closely correspond to the

explanations given by the arresting officers here. Thus, we are compelled to
observe the same degree of reasonableness here.

At any rate, the Court keenly notes that as in Mara/it, the arresting
officers here were likewise able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items which were marked, inventoried, and photographed in
front of an elected official and two (2) media representatives. To be clear
though, a media representative is no substitute for a DOJ representative under
RA 9165 prior to its amendment. However, the arresting officers' decision to
invite additional witnesses than required is cogent proof of their good faith, if
not, earnest efforts to comply with the witness requirement under Section 21,
RA 9165, and more important, to ensure transparency and dispel any kind of
suspicion on the legitimacy of the operation.

For another, it was not Perilla's job as insulating witness to look for
white powdery substance which could possibly be dangerous drugs. For the
insulating witnesses do not guarantee that the items seized from an accused
are indeed dangerous drugs. They only needed to confirm that the items seized
from appellant as appearing in the inventory, regardless of whether they
dangerous drugs or simply mundane things, are the same items offered in
evidence before the trial court.

As the Court of Appeals correctly held, therefore, the first link in the
chain was duly established.

b. Second Link

The second link pertains to the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer. This is a necessary step in
the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall
Decision 19 G.R. No. 252902

conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the
developing criminal case. 78

Here, SPO2 Taldo and PO3 Perida turned over the seized items to SPO3
Caluag, the designated investigator for the case. This was established through
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as well as the Turn-Over of
Confiscated/Seized Evidence. 79

At any rate, appellant did not raise any specific argument against the
second link which is, therefore, deemed proved.

c. Third Link

The third link is the turnover of the seized drugs by the investigating
officer to the forensic chemist for examination.

Records show that on June 16, 2010, at 1:30 in the morning, SPO3
Caluag turned over the seized items to PCI Ortiz of the PNP Crime Laboratory
who was present at the operation. Thereafter, PSI Ballesteros received the
seized items from PCI Ortiz for laboratory examination at 2:55 that same
morning. Per Chemistry Report No. D-43-10, all four (4) bricks tested positive
for cocaine.

Appellant claims, however, that the third link was not sufficiently
established considering that the prosecution did not present PCI Ortiz as
witness. Too, PSI Ballesteros received two (2) requests for laboratory
examination, one each from SPO3 Caluag and PCI Ortiz.

The arguments fail to convince.

The prosecution's failure to present the testimony of PCI Ortiz did not
diminish the integrity and evidentiai-y value of the seized items. To be sure,
the Court is not inflexible in its treatment of drug cases. As held in Malillin
v. People: 80

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 exhibit's 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.

78
People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. IO 17, 1026(2017).
79
Rollo, p. 25.
80
576 Phil. 576, 587-588 (2008). ·

1
 Decision 20 G.R. No. 252902

Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect

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

Indeed, strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of

illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting,
tampering or alteration of evidence. 81 But this is not the case here where
appellant was caught with four (4) bricks of cocaine weighing about one (I)
kilo each.

What makes the seized items here even more peculiar was that they
were wrapped in masking tape and distinctly marked during the operation with
LPP 06152315 2010, LPPl 06152315 2010, LPP2 06152315 2010 and LPP3
06152315 2010 together with the signature of the arresting officers. Photos of
these four (4) bricks were also taken, allowing confirmation on whether the
same bricks of cocaine seized from appellant landed on the hands of PSI
Ballesteros. This would not have been possible had the case involved
miniscule amounts.

In any event, the presumption of regularity in the performance of

official functions .operates in favor of the arresting officers. 82 Unless there is
clear and convincing evidence that the police officers were inspired by any
improper motive or did not properly perform their duty, their testimonies on
the operation deserve full faith and credit. Thus, unless the presumption is
rebutted, it becomes conclusive. 83

Here, the arresting officers were not impelled by any improper motive
to perform the buy-bust and arrest appellant other than their genuine desire to
properly perfonn their functions. In fact, they did not hastily act on the report
from their confidential informant and conducted a test buy to verify the
information they received. When it yielded positive results, they immediately
hatched the buy-bust operation. There were no serious lapses during its
conduct. At most, no DOJ .representative was present during the inventory but
even this was justified. The presumption of regularity, should therefore be
upheld to fill the supposed gap in the chain of custody.

81
People v. Sali, G.R. No. 236596 (Resolution), [January 29, 2020).
82
Section 3(m), Rule )3 I, Rules of Court.
83
Peoplev. Cabiles, 81.0 Phil. 969, 975-976 (2017).
Decision 21 G.R. No. 252902

As for the double request for laboratory examination, this too was
adequately explained. The request from PCI Ortiz was due to the fact that he
was the one who personally delivered the seized items to PSI Ballesteros. But
PCI Ortiz also worked at the PNP Crime Laboratory and was actually PSI
Ballesteros' superior. Though present at the scene, PCI Ortiz was not part of
the buy bust team, the actual party who would be interested in the results of
the laboratory examination for purposes of filing a criminal case against
appellant. Thus, SPO3 Caluag prepared his own request for laboratory
examination so that their station would directly receive the results of said
examination within 24 hours as required under Section 21 of RA 9165.

Verily, the third link.was also established.

d. Fourth Link

The final link is the turnover and submission of the seized items by the
forensic chemist to the court.

Here, PSI Ballesteros brought the seized items to the trial court during
the pre-trial conference and hearing-on appellant's petition for bail. Said items
were marked as exhibits in open court in the presence of appellant himself and
counsel. 84 PSI Ballesteros further testified during the trial: 85

Prosecutor Manguiat-Ngaosi:

Q: I have here two (2) shoeboxes one yellow and one maroon. Can you
please go over these including the contents of these boxes and tell us
what are the relation of these, if any, to the exhibits presented to you
that you earlier mentioned?
A: These are the specimens submitted to me for examination, ma'am.

Q: Why do you know that these are the specimens submitted for
examination?
A: I placed my own markings, ma'am.

Q: What are your markings placed on these exhibits, Mr. Witness?

A: For Box no. I, I placed D-43-l0E MAB, my initials, the date, June 16,
2010, and its contents D-43_-10 A-2 and D-43-10 A-1, for the second
box, I placed D-43-10 B, my initials, the date, June 16, 2010, and for its
contents I placed D-43-10 B-2, D-43-10 B-1.

In fine, there is no doubt that the items seized from appellant and tested
by PSI Ballesteros were t.1-i.e same items delivered to court for purposes of
prosecuting appellant's case.

84
Rollo, p. 28.
85
TSN, PSI Mark.Alain B. Ballesteros, April 7, 2011, pp. 14-15 as cited in the Decision dated April 26,
2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08244, p. 27; see id. at 29.
Decision 22 G.R. No. 252902

Appellant, however, faults the trial court for failure to perform an ocular
inspection within 72 hours from the filing of the Informations as required by
Section 21(4) of RA 9165.

But the same does not, in any way, affect the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items. To recall, Section 21(4) of RA 9165 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. -
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:

xxxx

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

Clearly, the purpose of the provision is to allow the PDEA to destroy

the seized drug items even before they are presented in court to reduce the risk
of these items ending up back in the streets. Meanwhile, ocular inspection
allows the trial court to personally see the seized items before they are
destroyed by the PDEA. It ensures that the representative sample brought to
court as proof of the corpus delicti actually came from the items seized from
the accused.

Otherwise stated, Section 21 (4) of RA 9165 bears upon the integrity

and evidentiary value of representative samples only. Non-compliance with
the provision would not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the
entirety of the seized items when said items themselves are presented in court,
not just their representative samples, as here.
Decision 23 G.R. No. 252902

Here, the prosecution offered in evidence not just mere representative

samples of the four (4) bricks of cocaine seized from appellant but the four
(4) bricks of cocaine themselves duly marked as Exhibits HH, II, KK and
LL. 86 Surely, this is over-compliance with the chain of custody rule which
allows mere representative samples to be offered in evidence during trial.
Since the seized drug items were not destroyed, the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items were further preserved.

The Court recognizes though that the PDEA's failure to destroy the (4)
bricks of cocaine beforehand nevertheless constituted a breach of Section
21(4), RA 9165. To repeat, however, this would not affect the integrity and
evidentiary value of the entirety of the seized items but could, at most, be
ground for possible disciplinary action.

All told, the prosecution has successfully established the chain of

custody of the seized items. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value
of these seized items are deemed preserved. The corpus delicti of the crimes
charged against appellant were therefore established. As such, there is no
reason to depart from the assailed verdicts of conviction.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated

April 26, 2019 and Resolution dated October 9, 2019 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08244 are AFFIR.i"VIED.

Appellant SPOl ALEXANDER ESTABILLO y PALARA is found

GUILTY of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 and
sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a FINE of Pl0,000,000.00 for
each offense.

SO ORDERED.

AMY ¢1fdfi~-JAVIER
Associate Justice

86 Id. at 28.
Decision 24 G.R. No. 252902

WE CONCUR:

,1e Ml
ESTELA M. ~ERLAS-BERNABE
Chairperson

RIC .ROSARIO
ciate Justice

JHOSE~PEZ
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

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

ESTELA~dsERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

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

G.GESMUNDO