[G.R. No.

185717, June 08 : 2011]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DELA CRUZ,

DECISION

VELASCO JR., J.:

The Case

This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated June 30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 02727, which affirmed in toto the February 8, 2007 Decision2 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-
117814 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82 in Quezon City. The RTC found accused Garry de
la Cruz y dela Cruz (Garry) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

In an Information3 filed on June 3, 2003, accused was indicted for the crime allegedly committed as
follows:

That on or about the 29th of May, 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being
authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and
there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said
transaction, zero point zero two (0.02) gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Upon arraignment on July 28, 2003, accused pleaded "not guilty" to the above charge. 4  Trial5 on the
merits ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

After conducting surveillance for a week, the Station Drug Enforcement Unit in La Loma, Quezon City
planned a buy-bust operation against a certain Garry who was in the Barangay Watch List.  The
operation was coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

On May 29, 2003, at around 9:00 a.m., the station's Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Police Inspector Oliver
Villanueva (P/Insp. Villanueva), gave a briefing on the buy-bust operation.  Police Officer 2 Edcel
Ibasco (PO2 Ibasco) was designated as poseur-buyer, while PO1 Roderick Valencia (PO1 Valencia),
PO1 Alfredo Mabutol, and PO2 Ronald Pascual were assigned as back-up operatives. Their informant
attended the briefing.

Thereafter, the buy-bust team proceeded to Biak-na-Bato corner Mauban Streets, Quezon City and
arrived there at around 9:30 a.m.  The informant introduced PO2 Ibasco to the accused, who was
standing in front of a shanty, as wanting to buy shabu.  The accused asked for PhP 100, and when
PO2 Ibasco paid the amount, the former handed over to him a white crystalline substance in a plastic
sachet.  Upon PO2 Ibasco's prearranged signal, the other members of the buy-bust team approached
them.  The accused, sensing what was happening, ran towards the shanty but was caught by PO1
Valencia at the alley.  PO1 Valencia introduced himself as a police officer and frisked the accused, in
the process recovering the buy-bust money.

The buy-bust team then brought the accused to the station.  The accused was turned over to the desk
officer on duty, along with the substance in the sachet bought from him and the recovered buy-bust
money.  After inquest, the Information was filed on June 3, 2003.  Accused was then committed to the
Quezon City Jail.6

Consequently, the substance inside the sachet believed to be shabu was sent to and examined by a
Philippine National Police forensic chemist, Engr. Leonard Jabonillo (Engr. Jabonillo).  The laboratory
result confirmed that the substance was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Only PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia testified for the prosecution during the trial. The testimony of Engr.
Jabonillo was dispensed with upon stipulation by the defense.

Version of the Defense

The accused denied selling shabu to PO2 Ibasco.  In short, the accused used the defense of denial and
alleged a frame-up by the arresting officers.

The accused testified that he was arrested on May 29, 2003 at around 9:00 a.m. inside his house
at Barangay Manresa, Quezon City while he was alone drinking coffee. While two neighbors were
talking in front of his house, a Tamaraw FX arrived.  Five armed men alighted from it, whereupon his
neighbors ran away and were chased by them.  The armed men then returned, saying, "Nakatakas,
nakatakbo." (They had escaped and ran.) One of the armed men saw the accused and entered his
house.  It was PO2 Ibasco, who frisked him and got PhP 60 from his pocket.  PO1 Valencia also
entered his house and came out with a shoe box, then said, "Sige, isakay n'yo na." (Take him in the
car.) He asked the armed men what his violation was but was told to merely explain at the precinct.

In the police precinct, he was investigated and subsequently detained.  They showed him a plastic
sachet which they allegedly recovered from him.  Then a man approached him and demanded PhP
30,000 for his release, but he said he did not have the money.  Thereafter, he was presented for
inquest.

A witness, Rodolfo Buencamino (Buencamino), narrated that in the morning of May 29, 2003, he
called the police precinct to have a certain "Taba," an alleged drug pusher in their area, arrested.  PO2
Ibasco and other police officers responded immediately.  When the police officers arrived, Buencamino
pointed to "Taba," who, however, was able to evade arrest.  Thereafter, he was surprised to see the
accused inside the vehicle of the policemen. But he did not know why and where the accused was
arrested since he did not witness the actual arrest.

Another witness, Marbelita Collado Lepiten (Lepiten), testified that she was at the terrace of her house
on 135 Manba St., Manresa, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, when she noticed the accused
talking to a certain "Taba," a resident of the area.  When a maroon Tamaraw FX stopped in front of
the house of accused, "Taba" ran away and was pursued by two men who alighted from the vehicle. 
The two men returned without "Taba," who evidently escaped, and entered the house of the accused. 
She did not know what happened inside the house but she eventually saw the men push the accused
outside into their vehicle.

The Ruling of the RTC 

On February 8, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the offense charged. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused GARRY DELA CRUZ guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and hereby sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS.

SO ORDERED.

In convicting the accused, the RTC relied on and gave credence to the testimony of prosecution
witnesses PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia.  Citing People v. Jubail,7 which  enumerated the elements
required to be established by the prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the trial court
found that the prosecution had established the elements of the crime.

The RTC pointed out that Buencamino may, indeed, have called the police to arrest a certain "Taba,"
an alleged pusher in the area, but he was not present when the accused was arrested.  The trial court
likewise did not accord evidentiary weight to the testimony of Lepiten, who testified that she saw the
accused talking to "Taba" and that when the police officers entered the house of the accused, she was
unaware of what transpired inside.  Thus, the RTC concluded that her testimony did not provide clear
and convincing justification to cast doubt on the candid and straightforward testimonies of the police
officers.

Applying the presumption of the performance of official function, the lack of showing any ill motive on
the part of the police officers to testify against the accused, and the principle that the bare denial of
an accused is inherently weak, the RTC convicted the accused.

Consequently, with his conviction, the accused started to serve his sentence 8 and was subsequently
committed to the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City.

Aggrieved, accused appealed9 his conviction before the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

On June 30, 2008, the appellate court rendered the appealed decision, wholly affirming the findings of
the RTC and the conviction of appellant. The fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision supra is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

The CA upheld the findings of the trial court that the essential elements required for the conviction of
an accused for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 were present in the instant case.  The appellate
court brushed aside the irregularities raised by accused-appellant by putting premium credence on the
testimonies of the arresting police officers, who positively identified accused-appellant in open court. 
One with the trial court, the CA found no improper motive on the part of the police officers who, it
said, were regularly performing their official duties. Besides, relying on People v. Barlaan,10 the CA
held that the irregularities raised that there was no coordination with the PDEA and that no inventory
was made and no photograph taken of the seized drug, if true, did not invalidate the legitimate buy-
bust operation conducted.  Moreover, the CA found that the corpus delicti, i.e., the
confiscated shabu and the PhP 100 bill, were presented as evidence of the commission of the offense.

The CA also ruled that accused-appellant's mere denial, as corroborated by Buencamino and Lepiten,
deserved scant consideration vis-á -vis the positive identification by the arresting officers who arrested
him in flagrante delicto.  Anent the questioned chain of custody, the CA found it unbroken and duly
proven by the prosecution.

The Issues

Hence, We have this appeal.

Only accused-appellant, however, filed his Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief), 11 while the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the People of the Philippines, submitted neither a
Manifestation nor a Motion.  Consequently, on July 27, 2009, the Court dispensed with the OSG's
submission of a supplemental brief.12  Since no new issues are raised nor supervening events
transpired, We scrutinize the Brief for the Accused-Appellant 13 and the Brief for the Plaintiff-
Appellee,14 filed in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02727, in resolving the instant appeal.

Thus, accused-appellant raises the same assignment of errors, in that:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.

II

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-
APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF DENIAL.15

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

Accused-appellant argues that, first, the prosecution has not proved his commission of the crime
charged for the following irregularities: (1) the arresting officers did not coordinate with the PDEA, as
required under Sec. 86 of RA 9165; (2) no physical inventory was conducted and photograph taken of
the alleged seized drug in the presence of public officials, as required by Sec. 21 of RA 9165; and (3)
the chain of custody was not duly proved by the prosecution. And second, his denial is worthy of
credence upon corroboration by the credible witnesses presented by the defense.

After a careful and thorough review of the records, We are convinced that accused-appellant should be
acquitted, for the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt his commission of violation of
Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165.

A buy-bust operation is "a form of entrapment, in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and
the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the
violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the
crime."16  However, where there really was no buy-bust operation conducted, it cannot be denied that
the elements for illegal sale of prohibited drugs cannot be duly proved despite the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty and the seeming straightforward testimony in court by
the arresting police officers.  After all, the indictment for illegal sale of prohibited drugs will not have a
leg to stand on.

This is the situation in the instant case.

The courts a quo uniformly based their findings and affirmance of accused-appellant's guilt on: (1) the
straightforward testimony of the arresting police officers; (2) their positive identification of accused-
appellant; (3) no ill motive was shown for their testimony against accused-appellant; (4) the self-
serving defense of denial by accused-appellant; (5) the seeming irregularities in the conduct of the
buy-bust operation and the arrest of accused-appellant not invalidating the operation; and (6) the
testimonies of Buencamino and Lepiten not showing that the buy-bust operation was not conducted.

Although the trial court's findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on
appeal, this rule does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked,
misapprehended, or misapplied in a case under appeal, 17 as here.

For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following elements must be proved: (1) the
identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and its payment.  What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled
with the presentation before the court of the corpus delicti.18

In People v. Doria,19 the Court laid down the "objective test" in determining the credibility of
prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operations.  It is the duty of the prosecution
to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation--"from the initial contact between the
poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until
the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of sale." 20  We said that "[t]he
manner by which the initial contact was made, x x x the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of
the 'buy-bust money', and the delivery of the illegal drug x x x must be the subject of strict scrutiny
by the courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense." 21

No Surveillance Conducted

The testimony of PO2 Ibasco on direct examination did not mention an alleged surveillance conducted
by PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia prior to the alleged buy-bust operation, the corresponding
intelligence report, and the written communiqué with the PDEA.  The defense in cross-examination put
to task both PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia concerning these matters, as attested to in the Joint
Affidavit of Apprehension22 executed by the two police officers on May 30, 2003.  PO2 Ibasco testified
that his unit, specifically PO1 Valencia and himself, conducted surveillance on accused-appellant for a
week prior to the buy-bust operation on May 29, 2003 which, according to him, turned out positive,
i.e., accused-appellant was, indeed, selling shabu.

PO2 Ibasco on cross-examination testified, thus:

ATTY. LOYOLA:

Being an operative, you are of course, trained in intelligence work?

PO2 IBASCO:

Yes, sir.

Q: You said you conducted surveillance but you cannot show any proof that there is an intelligence
report, you have no proof?

A: Yes, sir.  There is, we were dispatched.

Q: Where is your proof now?

A: It's in our office.

Q: Your dispatch order for the surveillance do you have any?

A: I don't have it now sir but it's in the office.

Q: You said that you conducted surveillance for one week, did I hear you right?

A: Yes, sir.

xxxx

Q: So, you are saying you did not actually see him selling drugs at that time during the surveillance?

A: We saw him, sir.

xxxx

Q: None. You did not even coordinate this operation with the PDEA?

A: We coordinated it, sir.

Q: What is your proof that you indeed coordinated?

A: It's in the office, sir.

ATTY. LOYOLA:
May I make a reservation for continuance of the cross-examination considering that there are
documents that the witness has to present.

COURT:

What documents?

ATTY. LOYOLA:

The proof your Honor that there was indeed a coordination and the intelligence report.

COURT:

Will you be able to produce those documents?

A: Yes, sir.  "Titingnan ko po."

PROSECUTOR ANTERO:

Titingnan?

COURT:

You are not sure?  You don't have any copy of those documents?

A: You Honor, what we have in the office is the dispatch. 23

PO1 Valencia, likewise, on cross-examination testified:

ATTY. LOYOLA:

Mr. Witness, tell me during the orientation, you will agree with me that there was no coordination
made to the PDEA regarding this intended buy bust operation?

PO1 VALENCIA:

We have coordinated at the PDEA.

Q: You say that but you have no proof to show us that there was coordination?

A: We have, sir.

Q: What is your proof?

A: We have files in our office for coordination.

Q: Are you sure about that?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, Mr. Witness, based on the information, you already planned to conduct a buy bust operation
against the accused?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: But you will agree with me that there was no surveillance against the accused?

A: We have conducted a surveillance one week before the operation and we conducted surveillance
"Pinakawalan namin ang informant."

Q: What do you mean "pinakawalan ang informant"?

A: So that we have a spy inside to verify whether Garry was really selling shabu.

xxxx

Q: In fact you don't have any information report?

A: We have, sir.  It's in the office.  It's with Insp. Villanueva.

Q: And because you claim that you have submitted an information and report, of course, you should
have come up with an intelligence report.

A: Yes, sir.  It's also in the office of Insp. Villanueva.

xxxx

Q: And the alleged recovered item, the plastic sachet which contained white crystalline substance was
brought by whom to the PNP Crime Laboratory?

A: I cannot remember who brought it sir because it was a long time ago. 24

These documents--specifically the dispatch order, the intelligence report of the alleged surveillance,
and the written communiqué from the PDEA for the conduct of the surveillance and buy-bust
operation--were not, however, presented in court.  Evidently, these documents are non-existent,
tending to show that there really was no surveillance and, consequently, no intelligence report about
the surveillance or the averred written communiqué from PDEA attesting to coordination with said
agency.  Worse, the prosecution never bothered to explain why it could not present these documents. 
Thus, there is no basis to say that accused-appellant allegedly sold shabu a week before he was
arrested.

Even putting this lapse aside, the other irregularities raised by accused-appellant in the backdrop of
the uncontroverted testimonies of Buencamino and Lepiten tend to show that there was really no buy-
bust operation conducted resulting in the valid arrest of accused-appellant.

Generally, non-compliance with Secs. 21 and 86 of RA 9165 does not mean that no buy-bust
operation against appellant ever took place.25  The prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the
required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to Sec. 21, Art. II of
RA 9165 will not discharge the accused from the crime. Non-compliance with said section is not fatal
and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. 26

No Buy-Bust Operation

But where there are other pieces of evidence putting in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust operation,
these irregularities take on more significance which are, well nigh, fatal to the prosecution.

Putting in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust operation are the uncontroverted testimonies of
Buencamino and Lepiten, which gave credence to accused-appellant's denial and frame-up theory. The
Court is not unaware that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence
to extract information from or even to harass civilians. 27  This Court has been issuing cautionary
warnings to trial courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases, lest an innocent person is
made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. 28

The defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the
presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official
duties.29  Nonetheless, such a defense may be given credence when there is sufficient evidence or
proof making it to be very plausible or true.  We are of the view that accused-appellant's defenses of
denial and frame-up are credible given the circumstances of the case.  Indeed, jurisprudence has
established that the defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution's evidence is
such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, 30 as in the instant case.  At the very least,
there is reasonable doubt that there was a buy-bust operation conducted and that accused-appellant
sold the seized shabu.  After all, a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the
prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. 31

Notably, Buencamino voluntarily testified to the effect that he called the police asking them to
apprehend a certain "Taba," a notorious drug pusher in their area.  PO2 Ibasco and company
responded to his call and Buencamino helped identify and direct the policemen but "Taba"
unfortunately escaped.  Thus, Buencamino testified:

ATTY. BARTOLOME:

Mr. Witness, who asked you to testify today?

BUENCAMINO:

I volunteered myself to testify.

xxxx

Q: Can you tell us how, when and where the accused was arrested?

A: I was the one who called-up the precinct to arrest a certain Taba and not Garry.  Taba was the
target of the operation.

Q: When was that?

A: May 29, 2003.

Q: Why did you call the police station?

A: Ibasco talked to me to arrest Taba.

Q: Why are they going to arrest Taba?

A: Because he is a pusher in the area.

Q: Why do you know Ibasco?

A: Because he was a previous resident of Barangay Manresa.

Q: You said you called police officer [sic] what was the topic. Mr. Witness?

A: That Taba is already there and he already showed up and they immediately responded to arrest
Taba.

Q: So, Ibasco immediately responded to your call?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: When they arrived in your place what happened else, if any?

A: I pointed to Taba so they could arrest him.

Q: Where they able to arrest Taba?

Q: Whey they were not able to arrest alias Taba what happened, next Mr. Witness?  What happened
to Garry Dela Cruz?

A: I was surprised because I saw Garry Dela Cruz already inside the vehicle and I don't know why
Garry was inside the vehicle.32

Buencamino's assertion of knowing PO2 Ibasco was likewise not rebutted.  Moreover, the presentation
of the police logbook on calls received in the morning of May 29, 2003 would indeed show if
Buencamino or someone else made a call to the precinct about a certain "Taba," but then, again, the
prosecution did not bother to rebut the testimony of Buencamino.  Verily, this time the presumption
"that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced" 33 applies.  In fact, the prosecution
did not even assail Buencamino's credibility as a witness but merely made the point in the cross-
examination that he had no actual knowledge of the arrest of accused-appellant.  Thus, Buencamino
was cross-examined:

PROSECUTOR ANTERO:

You were not with Garry at the time he was arrested?

BUENCAMINO:

No, sir.

Q: You don't know where he was arrested at that time?

A: I don't know where Garry was, sir.

PROSECUTOR ANTERO:

That will be all, your Honor.34

More telling is the testimony of Lepiten which, uncontroverted, shows that there was no buy-bust
operation.  Her testimony corroborates the testimony of Buencamino that police enforcers indeed
responded to Buencamino's phone call but were not able to apprehend "Taba."  This destroys the buy-
bust operation angle testified to by PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia. Since the buy-bust operation
allegedly happened not inside the house of accused-appellant but in an open area in front of a shanty,
such cannot be sustained in light of what Lepiten witnessed: The policemen chased but were not able
to arrest "Taba"; thereafter, the policemen went inside the house of accused-appellant, emerging later
with him who was led to the vehicle of the policemen.  Thus, Lepiten testified:

ATTY. BARTOLOME:

Mrs. Witness, where were you on May 29, 2003, if you could still remember?

COURT:

What time?

ATTY. BARTOLOME:

At around 9:00 in the morning.

LEPITEN:

I was at the terrace of the house we are renting while sipping coffee.
Q: Where is that house located?

A: No. 135 Mauban Street, Barangay Manresa, Quezon City.

COURT:

Where is this, Novaliches?

A: No, your Honor, near San Francisco Del Monte.

xxxx

ATTY. BARTOLOME:

While drinking coffee, what transpired next, Mrs. Witness or was there any unusual thing that
happened?

A: Yes, sir.  While I was sitting on the terrace in front of the house we are renting is the house of
Garry. Garry was talking to a certain Taba whom I know.

xxxx

Q: While you saw them talking to each other, what happened next?

A: Suddenly a maroon FX stopped.

Q: Where?

A: In front of the house of Garry.

Q: When this maroon FX stopped, what happened next, if any?

A: Taba ran, sir.

Q: What happened next, if any?

A: Two (2) men in blue pants and white shirt alighted from the maroon FX and ran after Taba.

Q: Were they able to arrest Taba, Ms. Witness?

A: No, sir. They were not able to catch him.

Q: When they failed to arrest Taba, what did these two (2) men do, if any?

A: They returned in front of the house and Garry and I saw them entered the house of Garry.

xxxx

Q: What did they do, if any?

A: I don't know what they did inside because I could not see them, sir.  Then I saw them went down
and pushed Garry towards the FX.

xxxx

Q: After that what else happened, if any?

A: I just saw that they boarded Garry inside the FX.

COURT:

Any cross?

PROSECUTOR ANTERO:

No cross, your Honor.35

Thus, taking into consideration the defense of denial by accused-appellant, in light of the foregoing
testimonies of Buencamino and Lepiten, the Court cannot conclude that there was a buy-bust
operation conducted by the arresting police officers as they attested to and testified on. The
prosecution's story is like a sieve full of holes.

Non-Compliance with the Rule on Chain of Custody

Moreover, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the requisite chain of custody of the seized
specimen.  "Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory
to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. 36  The CA found an unbroken chain of custody
of the purportedly confiscated shabu specimen.  However, the records belie such conclusion.

The testimonies of PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia, as well as their Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, were
bereft of any assertion on how the seized shabu in a heat-sealed sachet was duly passed from PO2
Ibasco, the chosen poseur-buyer, who allegedly received it from accused-appellant, to forensic
chemist Engr. Jabonillo, who conducted the forensic examination.  While the testimony of Engr.
Jabonillo was dispensed with upon stipulation by the defense, as duly embodied in the RCT Order
dated March 16, 2004, it is likewise bereft of any assertion substantially proving the custodial
safeguards on the identity and integrity of the shabu allegedly received from accused-appellant.  The
stipulation merely asserts:

x x x that he is a Forensic Chemist of the Philippine National Police; that his office received a request
for laboratory examination marked as Exhibit "A"; that together with said request is a brown envelope
marked as Exhibit "B"; which contained a plastic sachet marked as Exhibit "B-1"; that he conducted a
requested laboratory examination and, in connection therewith, he submitted a Chemistry Report
marked as Exhibit "C". The findings thereon showing the specimen positive for Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride was marked as Exhibit "C-1", and the signature of the said police officer was marked as
Exhibit "C-2".  He likewise issued a Certification marked as Exhibits "D" and "D-1", and thereafter,
turned over the specimen to the evidence custodian and retrieved the same for [sic] purposed
proceeding scheduled today.37

While both PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia testified on the identity of the plastic sachet duly marked
with the initials "EIGC," there was no sufficient proof of compliance with the chain of custody.  The
records merely show that, after the arrest of accused-appellant, the specimen was allegedly turned
over to the desk officer on duty, whose identity was not revealed.  Then it was the station's OIC,
P/Insp. Villanueva, who requested the forensic examination of the specimen.  In gist, from the alleged
receipt of the plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of shabu by PO2 Ibasco from the alleged buy-bust
operation, the chain of custody of the specimen has not been substantially shown.  The Court cannot
make an inference that PO2 Ibasco passed the specimen to an unnamed desk officer on duty until it
made its way to the laboratory examination.  There are no details on who kept custody of the
specimen, who brought it to the Crime Laboratory, and who received and kept custody of it until Engr.
Jabonillo conducted the forensic examination.  The stipulated facts merely made an allusion that the
specimen custodian of the Crime Laboratory had possession of the specimen and released it for the
proceedings before the trial court.
It is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same
substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug be established with the
same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.38  This, the
prosecution failed to do.  The prosecution must offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a
sufficiently complete chain of custody.39

As the Court aptly put in People v. Cantalejo:

x x x the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs raises
doubt as to its origins.

x x x failure to observe the proper procedure also negates the operation of the presumption of
regularity accorded to police officers. As a general rule, the testimony of police officers who
apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that
they have performed their duties regularly.  However, when the performance of their duties is tainted
with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed.

While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this
presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it
cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 40

In sum, considering the multifarious irregularities and non-compliance with the chain of custody, We
cannot but acquit accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt.  The law demands that only
proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt can justify a verdict of guilt. 41  In all criminal prosecutions,
without regard to the nature of the defense which the accused may raise, the burden of proof remains
at all times upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 42  As
the Court often reiterated, it would be better to set free ten men who might probably be guilty of the
crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit. 43

In fine, We repeat what the Court fittingly held in People v. Ong, a case similarly involving a buy-bust
operation, thus:

The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven
beyond reasonable doubt.  While appellant's defense engenders suspicion that he probably
perpetrated the crime charged, it is not sufficient for a conviction that the evidence establishes a
strong suspicion or probability of guilt. It is the burden of the prosecution to overcome the
presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required.

In the case at bar, the basis of acquittal is reasonable doubt, the evidence for the prosecution not
being sufficient to sustain and prove the guilt of appellants with moral certainty.  By reasonable doubt
is not meant that which of possibility may arise but it is that doubt engendered by an investigation of
the whole proof and an inability, after such an investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the
certainty of guilt.  An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper even though the appellants'
innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the
prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence of the defense. Suffice it to say, a slightest
doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. 44

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. Accused-appellant Garry De La Cruz y Dela Cruz is
hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged on basis of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the CA Decision
dated June 30, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02727 is SET ASIDE. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is ordered to cause the immediate release of accused-appellant, unless he is being lawfully
held for another cause.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.
Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ.