(1) People vs.

Tacipit
GR NO. 109140 March 08, 1995 After the carnal act, threatened to kill her or her family if she
reports the matter to anyone.
Rationale:
Sec. 1. Object as evidence. – Objects as evidence are those The complainant, however did not heed the warning and
addresses to the senses of the court. When as object is relevant to immediately upon arriving at her house, reported the incident to
the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the her uncle.
court.
She submitted her clothing for examination and after being
Facts: investigated, submitted herself for medical examination.
The complainant, OneliaPamittan, was a 17-year old high school
student at the Abulug School of Fisheries in Abulug, Cagayan at the After executing a sworn statement narrating the circumstances
time of the commission of the offense. surrounding the commission of the crime and filed the
corresponding complaint for rape and after a through investigation
In the Afterternoon of January 03, 1991, Eden, her friend, invited the municipal trial court issued a warrant of arrest against the
some of her friends, including the complainant, over to her house. accused.

When the group arrived at Eden’s house, at about 4:30 pm, Roland Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.
Tacipit was already there with Eden’s brother, Elmer Molina, the
latter being a friend and co-worker of the accused. As his defense, the accused claimed that he and the complainant
were sweethearts since October 3, 1990 and that the complainant
According to the complainant, as she was about to leave the Molina voluntary yielded herself to him. As proof of their relationship, the
house, the accused restrained her, held her left hand and her accused presented a ring engraved with the name “Onelia” and
notebooks and told her friends to go ahead. Despite her cries and alleged that it was given to him by the complainant as a token of her
pleas for help, the owners of the house did nothing to help her. love. Defense witness Elmer Molina corroborated the testimony of
the accused, stating that he courted the complainant but was
On the other hand, defense witness, Elmer Molina, alleged that the spurned by her because she was already the accused’s sweetheart.
complainant and the accused were sweethearts. They left the house
together, with their hands over each other’s shoulders. At any rate, On the other hand, these contentions were firmly denied by the
it is undisputed that the complainant left the Molina household with prosecution. The complainant testified that she knew the accused to
the accused. be a married man and he never visited her house to court her. She
also denied that Elmer Molino courted her or that she told him that
On the way, the passed through a coconut plantation. There, the he was the accused’s girlfriend. As for the ring, the complainant
accused committed the alleged rape tearing her clothes.
denied ownership thereof. True enough, when the ring was tried on
her hand, it was loose and did not fir her finger.

Issue:
Whether or not the object evidence is valid?

Held:
Yes. For one, although there was an absence of external injuries on
the body of the complainant, the clothes worn by her at the time of
the offense speak well of the use of force and the presence of a
struggle. As the trial court noted: “Her T-shirt was torn which
corroborates her testimony that it was forcibly removed. These
physical evidence x xx are consistent only with the force and
compulsion applied on her; they prove she offered resistance and
her defloration was against her will.”

Thus, the accused’s reliance on the defense that he and the

complainant were lovers is unfounded. But even if it were true, such
relationship would not give the accused the license to deflower the
complainant against her will, and will not exonerate him from the
criminal charge for rape. Furthermore, there is nothing in the
testimonies of either the complainant or even the accused himself
which could indicate any sort of special relationship between the
two. The alleged proof of such relationship, the ring with
complainant’s name engrave on it, does not even fit the fingers of
the complainant. Their accusations with respect to each other
before, during and even after the commission of the crime were
consistent with the contention of the complainant that they are
nothing more than acquaintances. The evidence of the prosecution,
therefore, completely negates the existence of any relationship
between the accused and the complainant.
 (2) People vs. Jara Ruling:
144 SCRA 516, 30 September 1986 Yes. No general rule has been formulated as to the quantity of circu
mstantial evidence which will suffice for any case, but that matters
Rationale: not. For all that is required is that the circumstances proved must be
Sec. 1. Object as evidence. – Objects as evidence are those consistent with each other, and at the same time inconsistent with
addresses to the senses of the court. When as object is relevant to the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other rational hyp
the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the othesis except that of guilt. The circumstances constitute an unbrok
court. en chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points
to the guilt of the Jara beyond reasonable doubt. Mere denials of th
Facts: e accused as to his participation in the crime are only self-
There were no extrajudicial confessions admitted in evidence. But ci serving negative evidence which cannot outweigh circumstantial evi
rcumstantial evidence was presented to support a verdict of convicti dence clearly establishing his active participation in the crime.
on that Jara was the mastermind of the killing of his wife and the lat
ter’s friend:
1.) Jara resented his wife for having a relationship with a girl, the ot
her one who was killed.
2.) At the canteen where they work, whenever Jara committed even
the slightest mistakes, his wife scolded and cursed him.
3.) One of the waitresses observed that Jara shed no tears and his fa
ce did not show any indication of sorrow when he saw the lifeless b
ody of his wife.
4.) The hammer used in the killing is an instrument with which Jara i
s familiar.
5.) During the investigation at the scene of the crime, blood stains w
ere found splattered in the trousers and shirt worn by accused Jara.
His eyeglasses were also smeared with blood. When asked to explai
n the presence of said blood stains, accused Jara told the police that
before he learned about the killing, he was with his stepdaughter M
inerva Jimenez in the public market dressing chickens.

Issue:
Whether or not such evidences are sufficient to overturn the presu
mption of innocence in favor of Jara?
 (3) G.R. No. L-33609 December 14, 1981 At about 8:30 o'clock that same evening of May 30,
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 1968, while CarmelitoOmboy was in his house
vs. fronting the plaza of the poblacion of Nasipit,
JESUS G. RUIZ, defendant-appellant. Agusan del Norte, DodongRatilla, a nephew of the
accused, arrived and told him (CarmelitoOmboy)
Rationale: that the accused was requesting him to go to the
Sec. 1. Object as evidence. – Objects as evidence are those latter's house. Soon thereafter, CarmelitoOmboy
addresses to the senses of the court. When as object is relevant to went with DodongRatilla and proceeded to the
the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the accused's house located at a distance of only about
court. 20 meters away and upon arrival thereat, accused
who was then sitting by the door way beside a store
Facts: stood up and commanded him ( CarmelitoOmboy)
to go to the wharf and to tell Joker (Atty. Jose Ong
At about 6:30 P.M. of May 30, 1968, while accused was downstairs Oh, Jr., the deceased) to come to his (accused's)
in the mezzanine of the store situated at the first floor of his house house because the latter wanted to talk to the
along Mabini Street, at Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, former. Forthwith, CarmelitoOmboy along with
RaymundoDiscipulo arrived thereat and after quite sometime asked DodongRatilla took a tricycle and went to the wharf,
the accused whether it was true that the loading of copra on the a kilometer away, to look and fetch for the
M/V Sweet Hope that day was given to Goring Gavero. Expressing deceased. Sometime after their arrival at the wharf,
his surprise as he could not believe then that it could happen CarmelitoOmboy was able to contact and convey
because of his contract and good relation with the deceased, the the accused's message to the deceased who
accused was only able to answer: "Ha?" to RaymundoDiscipulo's affirmatively said "Yes, I will be going there" and a
query. little later rode in his jeep bound for the town
followed by CarmelitoOmboy in a tricycle.
At about 7 o'clock that same evening, the accused
left the said store, took a tricycle and went to the Meanwhile, and that was between 8:30 and 9:00
office of the Oceanic Enterprises and inquired for o'clock that same evening of May 30, 1968, a wharf-
the deceased. Upon being informed by bound cargo truck loaded with copra of the
LeoncioNjaiAcido, a copra sample man of the said deceased and driven by Jose Mendrez developed
Oceanic Enterprises, that the deceased was at the engine trouble at the comer of Roxas and Mabini
wharf, accused left and rode on the waiting tricycle Streets in the poblacion of Nasipit, Agusan del Norte
bound for the town. and stopped along Roxas Street at a point more or
less seven (7) meters from the place where accused
was sitting. A short while after the said cargo truck
stopped, and while its driver Jose Mendrez was still and soon thereafter, the deceased got down from
behind its wheel, the latter was approached by one his jeep and went towards the parked cargo truck
named Charlito Canon who said to him "Nong, you and looked over at the sacks of copra lying on the
are caged by Jesus Ruiz", referring to the accused. street. Then he proceeded to the place where
Jose Mendrez went down the cargo truck and accused was. Taking advantage of this opportunity,
proceeded to where accused was sitting outside his Mendrez left and went towards his parked cargo
store. Accused gave Mendrez a glass containing truck.
Tanduay wine, a little of which the latter drank.
Accused inquired from Mendrez as to the According to CarmelitoOmboy who arrived at the
whereabouts then of the deceased. Mendrez vicinity almost at the same time that the deceased
answered that he does not know because when he reached the place as the latter was followed by the
left the bodega, the deceased was not there. former from the wharf, the devised greeted the
accused "Jesse, Jesse" extending his arms to the
At this juncture then, and upon accused's accused who, however, slapped them and kicked
instructions, Charlito Canon NonoyPalabrica and the rattan stool and said, 'Sit down' to the deceased
another person unloaded from the stalled cargo in a commanding manner; that the deceased picked
truck three (3) sacks of copra which were then up the rattan stool and placed it in front of the
dropped along Roxas Street at the side of the said accused and sat on it, that accused demanded,
truck. Thereafter, Charlito Canon stood at a corner "Why did you load without asking permission?" that
fronting Roxas Street, while NonoyPalabrica and the the deceased answered "Jesse, easy, easy" that
other person went behind the house of the accused then splashed a glass of wine on the face of
accused.Mendrez excused himself and went to the the deceased and throw the glass to the concrete
truck but upon reaching the same, Charlito Canon pavement; that the deceased stood up, wiped his
told him that accused was calling for him again. So, face, removed his eyeglasses and wiped it with his
he (Mendrez) went back to the accused who, while T-shirt, wore his eyeglasses again and sat down
holding a glass of Tanduay on his left hand and with anew, but accused with his right hand slapped him
something protruding from his waist, told him not on the left cheek; that the deceased's face was
to go away, otherwise, he (accused) would shoot turned to the right due to the impact of the
him. slapping, only to be met by the shot from accused's
black revolver when the deceased turned his face to
While Mendrez was thus being threatened by the the front; that the accused got the revolver from his
accused, the deceased arrived in the vicinity riding right waist and that only one shot was fired that the
in his jeep, but before the latter could alight deceased jerked a little and fell to his left side,
therefrom, he was approached by Charlito Canon meanwhile the accused stood up still holding his
 revolver, raised it, turned its drum and tucked it on Police, and certain officers of the Philippine Constabulary, whose
his right waist; that thereafter, the accused turned testimonies, touching on how the crime was committed, totally
to his right, and went upstairs of his house and discredit the story of self-defense which fails to inspire belief. The
threw his firearm; that after a while, accused came finding of the trial court on the relative credibility of the witnesses
down from his house, passed by the body of the in this case deserves full respect.
deceased, walked along Roxas Street and
proceeded to the Municipal Building.

Chief Luneta saw near the house of the accused the Issue:
body of the deceased whom he had known for a Whether or not the the object evidence (gun) is relevant to the fact
good number of years. He did not see any firearms in issue, to be exhibited, examined or viewed by the court?
with or within the immediate vicinity of the victim..
Held:
CAUSE OF DEATH: Laceration with hemorrhage Yes. To begin with the initial unlawful aggression imputed to the
medulla due to gunshot wound. deceased by the defense, in order to erect the main prop of the
defense invoked by appellant, is belied by the more natural and
On the same date, May 31, 1968, at Camp Crame, credible testimony of the State witnesses.
Quezon City, the accused executed an affidavit
stating therein that while he and the deceased were Under such theory, the left least, of the deceased that supposedly
grappling for the possession of the deceased's fired the gun. But paraffin test conducted on June 2, 1968 showed
revolver, somebody whom he did not see fired at both hands of the deceased negative for nitrates (See Exhibit "L"). It
the deceased. was the left cheek of the deceased that was found positive for the
presence of nitrates, which shows that the gun was close to the face
Upon the other hand, the version of self-defense as developed by when it was fired.
appellant during the trial is as follows, quoting also from Appellant's
Brief: If there was a struggle for the possession of the gun of the deceased
as claimed by appellant, there is the much greater likelihood of the
The refusal of the trial court to give credence to appellant's version gun being held down on the level of the body during the struggle,
of self-defense is the basic and main assignment of error. not the level of the head.

We agree with the court a quo in rejecting the plea of self-defense. In the protective surrounding of appellant's residence where his
It has found the prosecution witnesses more credible, and rightly so, confrontation with the deceased took place, and appellant having
because they all appear to be disinterested witnesses, specially the been quite justifiably angered by what he heard that the deceased
public officials among them, the Municipal Judge, the Chief of had a rival union to load his copra.
The element of unlawful aggression not having been established, had in appellant, which alone would justify the appreciation of
appellant's plea of self-defense, or even that of incomplete self- abuse of confidence as an aggravating circumstance.
defense, must fall.
As to WHEREFORE, with the modification as to the penalty which is
With the constant shifting of appellant's version from that of a prison term as above indicated, instead of death, imposing the
absolute denial that he shot at the deceased, pointing to an death penalty on the appellant, Jesus G. Ruiz, for murder,
unknown person as the assailant, to that of accidental shooting, and aggravated by abuse of confidence, and sentencing him also to pay
finally to that of legitimate self-defense, the utter incredibility of the heirs of the deceased, Atty. Jose Ong Oh, Jr.
each of the changing theory he gave from the time he first gave
statement in custodial interrogation, to the time he testified in SO ORDERED.
court, becomes so manifest for him to be deserving of any bit of
credence as a witness in his own behalf. This is true with his
witnesses who merely tried to give corroboration to his principal
testimony. Topic: Requisites for admissibility of Object Evidence

Finding, therefore, that appellant shot and killed the deceased not CASE NO. 7
in lawful self- defense, his liability for the killing, authorship of
which he admitted, is beyond doubt. The only question now is PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
whether the shooting was attended with treachery as to raise the vs.
slaying to the category of murder as charged, and as found by the FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO;" JOSMAN AZNAR;
trial court, said court holding that there was treachery, even if the ROWEN ADLAWAN alias "WESLEY;" ALBERT CAÑO alias "ALLAN
attack was frontal, because it was sudden and unexpected. PAHAK;" ARIEL BALANSAG; DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA alias
'TISOY TAGALOG;" JAMES ANTHONY UY alias "WANGWANG;" and
We neither could view the fact that both appellant and the JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM," Appellants.
deceased were friends as giving rise to the aggravating circumstance
of abuse of confidence when appellant killed the deceased, as held Evidence; Physical evidence is one of the highest degrees of
by the trial court. proof—it speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put
together.—We reiterate our pronouncement in our Decision that
The deceased himself naturally got mad at the appellant, a mood what makes Rusia’s testimony worthy of belief is its striking
not quite compatible with the charitable feeling of confidence. The compatibility with the physical evidence. Physical evidence is one of
deceased then knew, beyond mere suspicion, that appellant was the highest degrees of proof. It speaks more eloquently than all
mad at him. It certainly cannot be said, therefore, that the witnesses put together. The presence of Marijoy’s ravished body in
commission of the crime was facilitated by the confidence deceased a deep ravine at Tan-awan, Carcar with tape on her mouth and
handcuffs on her wrists certainly bolstered Rusia’s testimony on
what actually took place from Ayala Center to Tan-awan.Indeed, the while, he thought that Rowen's "big happening" meant group
details he supplied to the trial court are of such nature and quality partying. He thus lingered at the Ayala Mall until the appointed time
that only a witness who actually saw the commission of the crimes came.
could furnish. Reinforcing his testimony is its corroboration by
several other witnesses who saw incidents of what he narrated. On the night of July 16, 1997, victims Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong
Dacillo and Minozawitnessed Jacqueline’s two failed attempts to failed to come home on the expected time. Two days after, a young
escape from appellants near Ayala Center. Molina and Vergara woman was found dead at the foot of a cliff. Her pants were torn,
recognized Rowen as the person who inquired from them where he her t-shirt was raised up to her breast and her bra was pulled down.
could find a vehicle for hire on the evening of July 16, 1997. Duarte Her face and neck were covered with masking tape and attached to
saw Rowen when he bought barbeque and Tanduay at a Store while her left wrist was a handcuff. The woman was identified as Marijoy.
the white van, driven by Cañ o, was waiting on the side of the road After almost ten months, accused Davidson Rusia surfaced and
and he heard voices of “quarreling male and female” emanating admitted before the police having participated in the abduction of
from the van. And lastly,Camingao and Rio testified on the presence the sisters. He identified appellants
of Larrañ aga and Josman at Tan-awan, Carcar at dawn of July 17, Larrañaga,Aznar,Adlawan,Caño,Balansag, and the Uy brothers as co-
1997. All these bits and pieces of story form part of Rusia’s perpetrators in the crime. Rusia provided the following before the
narration. Now, with such strong anchorage on the physical trial court:
evidenceand the testimonies of disinterested witnesses, why
should we not accord credence to Rusia’s testimony? Even assuming That at 10:30 in the evening of July 16, 1997, he met Rowen and
that his testimony standing alone might indeed be unworthy of Josman and told him to ride with them in a white car. Following
belief in view of his character, it is not so when considered with the them were Larrañaga, and the Uy’s who were in a red car. Josman
other evidence presented by the prosecution. stopped the white car in front of the waiting shed where the sisters
Marijoy and Jacqueline were standing and forced them to ride the
Per curiam decision car. Rusia taped their mouths while Adlawan handcuffed them
jointly. That after stopping by a safe house, the group thereafter
FACTS: headed to the South Bus Terminal where they met Alberto and
Ariel, and hired the white van driven by the former. They traveled
On August 12, 1998, Rusia testified before the trial court how the towards south of Cebu City, leaving the red car at the South Bus
crimes were committed and identified all the appellants as the Terminal. That after parking their vehicles near a precipice, they
perpetrators. drank and had a pot session. Later, they pulled Jacqueline out of the
van and told her to dance as they encircled her. She was pushed
On July 15, 1997, while Rusia was loafing around at the Cebu Plaza
from one end of the circle to the other, ripping her clothes in the
Hotel, Cebu City, Rowen approached him and arranged that they
process. Meanwhile, Josman told Larrañaga to start raping Marijoy
meet the following day at around 2:00PM. When they saw each
who was left inside the van.
other the next day, Rowen told him to stay put at the Ayala Mall
because they would have a "big happening" in the evening. All the Then they carried Marijoy out of the van, after which Josman
brought Jacqueline inside the vehicle. Josman came out from the The Solicitor General is DIRECTED (a) to secure from the Local Civil
van after ten minutes, saying, "whoever wants next go ahead and Registrar of Cotobato City, as well as the National Statistics Office, a
hurry up." Rusia went inside the van and raped Jacqueline, followed clear and legible copy of James Andrew’s Birth Certificate, and (b)
by James Andrew. At this instance, Marijoy was to breathe her last within ten (10) days therefrom, to file an extensive comment on the
for upon Josman's instruction, Rowen and Ariel led her to the cliff motion for reconsideration filed by James Andrew and James
and mercilessly pushed her into the ravine which was almost 150 Anthony Uy, solely on James Andrews’ claim of minority.
meters deep.
As for Jacqueline, she was pulled out of the van and thrown to the ISSUE/S:
ground. Able to gather a bit of strength, she tried to run towards the 1. Whether or not there is credence to Rusia’s testimony;
road. The group boarded the van, followed her and made fun of her 2. Whether or not the court properly reject the appellants’ alibi
by screaming, "run some more." There was a tricycle passing by. The that it is impossible for him to be in Cebu (NOTE: Something
group brought Jacqueline inside the van. Adlawan beat her until she improbable can happen is always possible. PPL V Madera)
passed out. The group then headed back to Cebu City with James (3-4) Whether or not the court erred in holding that the trial court
did not violate their right to due process when it excluded the
Andrew Uy driving the white car. Rusia got off from the van
testimony of other defense witnesses; and , in holding that the body
somewhere near the Ayala Center.
found in Tan-awan, Carcar was not that of Marijoy.
The claims of Rusia were supported by other witnesses. He was
discharged as an accused and became a state witness. Still, the body HELD:
of Jacqueline was never found. On the other hand Larranaga
contends that he’s in Quezon City at the time of the commission of In deciding a criminal case, the policy of the courts is always to look
the crime. at the case in its entirety. The totality of the evidence presented by
both the prosecution and the defense are weighed, thus, averting
Additional facts that may be related to the topic general conclusions from isolated pieces of evidence. This means
that an appeal of a criminal case opens its entire records for review.
On March 23, 2004, the Uy brothers (both minors at the time of
commission of the crime) filed a motion for reconsideration 1.Appellants vigorously contend that we should not have sustained
One of the grounds raised was THE IDENTITY OF THE DEAD BODY Rusia’s testimony hook, line and sinker, owing to his tainted record
OF THE WOMAN FOUND IN TAN-AWAN, CARCAR, CEBU LAST JULY and reputation. However, it must be stressed that Rusia’s testimony
18, 1997 WAS NEVER CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THUS THE NEED was not viewed in isolation. In giving credence to Rusia’s testimony,
FOR ITS EXHUMATION FOR DNA TESTING. the trial court took into consideration the physical evidence and the
Thus, in a Resolution dated July 21, 2005, we denied all the motions, corroborative testimonies of other witnesses. Thus, we find no
including what was mentioned above. However, left unresolved is reason why we should not uphold the trial court’s findings. We
the issue of James Andrew’s minority. reiterate our pronouncement in our Decision that what makes
Rusia’s testimony worthy of belief is its striking compatibility with
the physical evidence. Physical evidence is one of the highest prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.
degrees of proof. It speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put On top of its inherent weakness, alibi becomes less plausible as a
together. The presence of Marijoy’s ravished body in a deep ravine defense when it is corroborated only by relatives or close friends of
at Tan-awan, Carcar with tape on her mouth and handcuffs on her the accused.
wrists certainly bolstered Rusia’s testimony on what actually took This case presents to us a balance scale whereby perched on one
place from Ayala Center to Tan-awan. Indeed, the details he end is appellants’ alibi supported by witnesses who were either
supplied to the trial court are of such nature and quality that only a their relatives, friends or classmates, while on the other end is the
witness who actually saw the commission of the crimes could positive identification of the herein appellants by the prosecution
furnish. Reinforcing his testimony is its corroboration by several witnesses who were not, in any way, related to the victims. With the
other witnesses who saw incidents of what he narrated. Rolando above jurisprudence as guide, we are certain that the balance must
Dacillo and Mario Minozawitnessed Jacqueline’s two failed tilt in favor of the latter. Besides, a thorough examination of the
attempts to escape from appellants near Ayala Center. Benjamin evidence for the prosecution shows that the appellants failed to
Molina and Miguel Vergara recognized Rowen as the person who meet the requirements of alibi, i.e., the requirements of time and
inquired from them where he could find a vehicle for hire on the place. They failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence
evening of July 16, 1997. Alfredo Duarte saw Rowen when he that it was physically impossible for them to be at the Ayala
bought barbeque and Tanduay at Nene’s Store while the white van, Center, Cebu City when the Chiong sisters were abducted.
driven by Cañ o, was waiting on the side of the road and he heard
voices of “quarreling male and female” emanating from the van. During the hearing, it was shown that it takes only one (1) hour to
And lastly, Manuel Camingao and Rosendo Rio testified on the travel by plane from Manila to Cebu and that there are four (4)
presence of Larrañ agaand Josman at Tan-awan, Carcar at dawn of airline companies plying the route. One of the defense witnesses
July 17, 1997. All these bits and pieces of story form part of Rusia’s admitted that there are several flights from Manila to Cebu each
narration. Now, with such strong anchorage on the physical morning, afternoon and evening. Four (4) witnesses identified
evidence and the testimonies of disinterested witnesses, why Larrañ agaas one of the two men talking to Marijoy and Jacqueline
should we not accord credence to Rusia’s testimony? Even assuming on the night of July 16, 1997. And over and above all, Rusia
that his testimony standing alone might indeed be unworthy of categorically identified Larrañ agaas one of the participescriminis.
belief in view of his character, it is not so when considered with the
other evidence presented by the prosecution. At this juncture, it bears mentioning that this case is not the first
time that Larrañ agawas charged with or complained of pruriently
2. Appellants likewise claimed that we should have not sustained assaulting young female students in Cebu. Months before the
the trial court’s rejection of their alibi. Settled is the rule that the abduction of Marijoy and Jackie, the parents of a certain Rochelle
defense of alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of Virtucio, complained about Larrañ aga’s attempt to snatch their
positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on young daughter and drag her in a black, stylish Honda Civic.
affirmative matters. Being evidence that is negative in nature and
self-serving, it cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of
3.Larrañ aga and Aznar bewail our refusal to overturn the trial reception. Obviously, Larrañ agacould have produced it during trial
court’s exclusion of Professor Jerome Bailen and Atty. Florencio had he wished to.
Villarin, NBI, Regional Director, as defense witnesses. Professor
Bailen was properly excluded. First, he is not a finger-print expert 4. Knowing that the prosecution’s theory highly rests on the truth of
but an archaeologist. And second,his report consists merely of the Rusia’ testimony, appellants endeavor to destroy it by claiming that
results of his visual inspection of the exhibits already several months the body found at the foot of a deep ravine in Tan-awan, Carcar was
old. Anent Atty. Villarin’s failure to testify before the trial court, not that of Marijoy. We must reiterate the reasons why we cannot
suffice it to say that his belated Affidavit, which Aznar submitted via give our assent to such argument. First, Inspector Edgardo Lenizo, a
his supplemental motion for reconsideration dated May 5, 2004, fingerprint expert, testified that the fingerprints of the corpse match
raises nothing to change our findings and conclusions. What clearly those of Marijoy. Second, the packaging tape and the handcuff
appears in said Affidavit is a man trying to impress people that he found on the dead body were the same items placed on Marijoy and
was the one responsible for solving the Chiong case and for that, he Jacqueline while they were being detained. Third, the body had the
deserves a promotion. The trial court, at the onset, must have seen same clothes worn by Marijoy on the day she was abducted. And
such immateriality in his intended testimony. Indeed, we agree with fourth, the members of the Chiong family personally identified the
the Solicitor General’s observation that such Affidavit “is neither corpse to be that of Marijoy which they eventually buried. They
helpful nor encouraging to Aznar’s cause.” Third. Atty. Villarin’s erected commemorative markers at the ravine, cemetery and every
affidavit, in paragraphs 19 and 20 thereof, acknowledged that the place which mattered to Marijoy. As a matter of fact, at this very
body found in the Carcar ravine was that of Marijoy. This assertion moment, appellants still fail to bring to the attention of this Court
immediately conflicts with accused-appellant Aznar’s claim in his any person laying a claim on the said body. Surely, if the body was
Motion for Reconsideration that the corpse was not Marijoy’s. not that of Marijoy, other families who had lost someone of similar
age and gender as Marijoy would have surfaced and claimed the
In executing the affidavit, it appears that Atty. Villarin would want body. The above circumstances only bolster Rusia’s narration that
to impress that he, rather than those promoted, deserved the Rowen and Ariel pushed Marijoy into the deep ravine, following
promotion. Indeed, judging by the substance of his affidavit, he Josman’s instruction “to get rid” of her.
would not be testifying in case a new trial is held on anything that
has not been said and rejected heretofore, except his own CASE NO. 8
unsubstantiated opinions (i.e. not facts as required by evidentiary
rules), his self-congratulatory remarks, and his unmitigated
frustration over failing to get a promotion when almost everyone THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. NESTOR
else did.” Neither can we entertain at this late stage Dr. Fortun’s
separate study to show that the examination conducted on the GANDUMA, respondent.
body found in Tan-awan, Carcar is inadequate. Such study cannot be
classified as newly-discovered evidence warranting belated Evidence; Credibility of witnesses; Trial Court’s findings on
credibility of witness entitled to great respect, exception.—We are
not unmindful of the fact that ordinarily, the question of credibility The accused-appellant, Nestor Ganduma, was convicted of the
is for the trial court to resolve. But when there are circumstances on crime of rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
record that point to the possibility that the appraisal of the evidence perpetua and to indemnify the victim, Eva Comista, for damages in
by the trial court was tainted, this Court has the duty to weigh the the amount of P5,000.00 in a decision rendered by the Regional
evidence anew and reverse the decision if need be. Trial Court of Leyte through the Honorable Judge Fortunate B. Cuna.

Wounds too superficial to corroborate complainant’s allegation The lower court's decision was based on the testimonies of the
that she resisted appellant’s sexual advances; In a rape case, following witnesses for the prosecution: Eva Cornista, the alleged
testimony of complainant must be corroborated by physical offended party, Eugenia Afiano, Cornista's aunt, and
evidence showing use of force.—As to the presence of the linear Dr.VirgilioGernale, Cornista's examining physician. The testimonies
abrasions of 3.0 cm. in length found inside the left thigh of the of the foregoing witnesses proferred to establish the following facts:
complainant, we cannot appreciate those as indications of force and
violence. As pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, the At about 3:00 in the afternoon of September 8, 1980, while Eva
wounds may have been caused by blades of grass or by some hard Cornista, a 15-year old lass, was attending to her two brothers aged
object while the complainant and the appellant were caressing each three and one at the yard of her house, the accused appellant aged
other by the bushes. Nonetheless, the wounds were too superficial 21 years old, passed by and suddenly pointed a bolo at the girl's
to corroborate the complainant’s allegation that she resisted the breast. Threatening the girl with death if she shouted, the accused-
appellant’s sexual advances which compelled the latter to use brute appellant dragged her to the bushes which was about 10 meters
force. In a rape case, the testimony of the complainant must be from her house, then pushed her to the ground. When Eva fell face
corroborated by physical evidence showing use of force. upward, the appellant placed himself on top of her. Still holding the
bolo with his right hand, and pointing it at the girl's breast, the
Testimony of Eugenia Añano does not show that the crime charged appellant removed the girl's underwear, then his trousers with his
was committed. Neither did she mention seeing a deadly weapon left hand, and successfully had carnal knowledge of her. Eva
at the scene of the supposed crime - The testimony of Eugenia screamed and this was heard by her aunt Eugenia. Responding to
Añ ano does not show that the crime charged was committed. We the scream, Eugenia proceeded to the place where she witnessed
note the fact that Añ ano merely declared that she surprised the the appellant sexually abusing Eva. Surprised, the appellant picked
appellant and the complainant while the former was on top of the up his clothes then fled.
latter doing the push and pull motion. She never said anything
about a struggle.Nor did the witness mention seeing a knife or any The examining physician testified as to the presence of some linear
deadly weapon at the scene of the supposed crime at the moment abrasions on the inside of the girl's left thigh, the prominence of
of discovery and even when the appellant supposedly fled. rugosities in and the laxity of the vaginal wall. The girl's hymen was,
however, found intact as it was flexible. The physician further
FACTS: testified that the girl might actually have had sexual intercourse
near or at the time of the commission of the crime of rape.
 does not dispute the findings of fact of the trial court. If, indeed,
On the other hand, the appellant in his testimony declared that Eva there was no complaint, such would have been ground enough for
was as sweetheart, their love affair having started some two years the acquittal of the accused.
before the alleged crime happened, that is, when the appellant was
still employed as a helper in the household of Eva. The appellant's While the findings of facts here are not disputed by the appellant
employment was terminated sometime later by Eva's father and his defense of an alleged procedural infirmity is now
because of his (appellant's) failure to pay the amount of P50.00 overthrown, we nevertheless reverse the judgment of the lower
loan. On the day of the alleged crime, the appellant testified, he court on the ground of reasonable doubt.
went to Eva's house upon the invitation of the latter. When asked
how the invitation was relayed to him, the appellant declared that We are not unmindful of the fact that ordinarily, the question of
Eva called his name and beckoned him with her hand towards the credibility is for the trial court to resolve. But when there are
direction of her house. (The houses of Nestor and Eva were some 25 circumstances on record that point to the possibility that the
meters apart.) As soon as Nestor arrived at the house, the two appraisal of the evidence by the trial court was tainted, this Court
began sharing intimacies in the sala until the latter suggested that has the duty to weigh the evidence anew and reverse the decision if
they should not do it at her house because her "father might see." need be. As Justice Malcolm said in People v. Otero:
Both, thus, proceeded to the bushes where they continued kissing
and caressing each other. Eva later suggested that they undress. It After everything is said and done, we come back, as we invariably
was while they were removing their clothes that Eugenia Añano, do in cases of this nature, to a recognition of the rule that the
Eva's aunt, surprised them. Nestor recalled Eugenia's statement, Supreme Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial
"You Eva ..., that is what you are doing whenever your parents are court in passing on the credibility of the opposing witnesses,
away. I am going to tell your parents about this." Thereupon, Eva unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of
urged the defendant to leave saying, "Nestor, you go ahead of me weight and influence, which has been overlooked or the
because we will not stop if you will not leave me." significance of which has been misinterpreted.

This case is now with us on appeal. The appellant assigned the A thorough evaluation of the records of the case discloses certain
following errors: matters in the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution
1. That the decision of the trial court was rendered without which, to our minds, render doubtful the commission of the crime
jurisdiction; charged. This being the case, reversal is but proper.

2. That the decision of the trial court is contrary to law and ISSUE:
therefore null and void.
Whether or not Nestor Ganduma’s guilt was proven beyond
The appellant anchors his appeal on the alleged absence of a reasonable doubt.
complaint as required by Art. 344 of the Revised Penal Code. He
RULING: bushes against her wig. It is more plausible that she went with the
appellant to the bushes willingly.
NO. This court reverses the judgment of the lower court on the
ground of reasonable doubt. Nestor Ganduma is acquitted from the As to the presence of the linear abrasions of 3.0 cm. in length found
crime of Rape. A thorough evaluation of the records of the case inside the left thigh of the complainant, we cannot appreciate those
discloses certain matters in the testimonies of the witnesses for the as indications of force and violence. As pointed out by the counsel
prosecution which, to our minds, render doubtful the commission of for the appellant, the wounds may have been caused by blades of
the crime charged. This being the case, reversal is but proper. grass or by some hard object while the complainant and the
appellant were caressing each other by the bushes. Nonetheless,
We are not convinced that the complainant offered a tenacious the wounds were too superficial to corroborate the complainant's
resistance to the alleged sexual assault. allegation that she resisted the appellant's sexual advances which
compelled the latter to use brute force. In a rape case, the
While she was being dragged to the bushes, which was some 10 testimony of the complainant must be corroborated by physical
meters away, she allegedly struggled to free herself from the grip of evidence showing use of force. 3
the accused-appellant. It was for this reason that she fell twice and
sustained bruises on her knees and left arm. But while all these The testimony of Eugenia Añano does not show that the crime
allegedly happened to her which undoubtedly, must have caused charged was committed. We note the fact that Añano merely
her great pain, she never shouted, cried nor even whimpered. For if declared that she surprised the appellant and the complainant while
she did, her aunt, witness Añano, would have heard her at that very the former was on top of the latter doing the push and pull motion.
moment, considering that Añano was only some distance away (35 She never said anything about a struggle. Nor did the witness
meters). mention seeing a knife or any deadly weapon at the scene of the
supposed crime at the moment of discovery and even when the
Moreover, the examining physician's findings pointed to the appellant supposedly fled. Moreover, witness Añano heard only one
presence of some linear abrasions inside of the complainant's thigh shout ("ouch or agui") which may actually not have been a cry of
but none on her arms or legs. The said bruises, if there were indeed resistance or a cry for help but a cry of discomfort or pain naturally
any, could not have been missed by the physician for he had the felt by a woman who was experiencing sexual intercourse in such
duty to examine physically the complainant. Neither could the venue.
alleged bruises have already healed for the physical examination
was conducted barely a week after the alleged crime of rape was If the appellant indeed entertained lustful intentions towards the
committed. Physical evidence being of the highest order, this complainant and the latter never reciprocated any advances that he
absence of external injuries belies the complainant's testimony that must have made, he would have committed the crime charged
she was dragged to the bushes thus rendering her credibility in while he was still employed in the complainant's house. For then,
doubt. 2 It is, therefore, a possibility that the complainant might not the satisfaction of his sexual urges through the use of force was
actually have tripped while she was allegedly being dragged to the easier to accomplish considering that both were then living under
the same roof Certainly, there were many instances when only the motivated to file the case if only to escape the indignation of her
two of them were left in the house and what better opportunities family as well as the social disrepute that goes with the act. In this
did he have than those moments when he could have pounced case, we cannot but suspect the motive that impelled the
upon the unsuspecting complainant and abuse her sexually. Again, complainant to file the rape case. Suffice it to say that no less than
we say that such was unusual. And when the alleged crime was the complainant's aunt discovered the appellant and the
discovered by Añano and the appellant fled from the scene of the complainant while in sexual congress. Expectedly, the matter was
crime, we find it, likewise, unusual that the appellant never even reported by Añano to the complainant's parents. More because of
bothered to hide in order to escape the ire of complainant's father fear for her father's wrath for her having carried on a relationship
as wen as the strong arm of the law. with a man who was not only her family's former helper but also the
man her father disliked utterly, as well as the social consequences,
From the preceding, we can but conclude that the complainant and than for any affection that she may have had for the appellant, the
the appellant, as the latter claims, were lovers and that the sexual complainant had to report to her father that she was sexually
act was but a product of their passions inflamed. Their physical abused. Thus, this case for rape which saw the conviction of the
accessibility for each other borne out by the fact that both lived appellant in the lower court.
under the same roof for quite some time must have given rise to
what developed as sexual intimacy. This is not an uncommon result Considering the above circumstances, we are, to a great extent,
of mere propinquity. doubtful whether the crime charged was, in fact, committed. The
prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
While this Court has, in numerous cases, affirmed the judgments of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the constitutional presumption of
conviction rendered by the trial court in rape charges especially innocence not having been successfully overcome, it should prevail.
where the offended parties were very young and presumptively had The appellant, hence, is entitled to acquittal.
no ill motives to concoct a story if only to secure indictments for a
crime as grave as rape, this Court likewise reversed judgments of 9) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MALIMIT
conviction and acquitted the accused when there were strong FACTS:
indications pointing to the possibility that the rape charges were On April 15, 1991, around 8:00 o'clock in the evening, [Onofre]
merely motivated by some factors except the truth as to their Malaki was attending to his store. Malaki's houseboy Edilberto
commission. Batin, on the other hand, was busy cooking chicken for supper at
the kitchen located at the back of the store
In People v. Berdaje, this Court considered the case an exception to Soon thereafter, Florencio Rondon, a farmer, arrived at the store of
the general belief that a 15-year old girl would not expose herself to Malaki. Rondon was to purchase chemical for his rice farm. Rondon
the ordeal of a public trial if she were not motivated solely by a came from his house, approximately one hundred and fifty (150)
desire to have the culprit who had ravished and shamed her placed meters distant from Malaki's store
behind bars. The evidence in the said case showed that the alleged Meanwhile, Batin had just finished cooking and from the kitchen, he
victim voluntarily submitted to the sexual intercourse. She was proceeded directly to the store to ask his employer (Malaki) if
supper is to be prepared. As Batin stepped inside the store, he was certificate; (2) his identification card; and (3) bunch of keys, violates
taken aback when he saw appellant coming out of the store with a his right against self-incrimination.
bolo while his boss, bathed in his own blood, was sprawled on the
floor "struggling for his life". We are not persuaded. The right against self-incrimination
Rondon, who was outside and barely five (5) meters away from the guaranteed under our fundamental law finds no application in this
store, also saw appellant Jose Malimit (or "Manolo") rushing out case. This right, as put by Mr. Justice Holmes in Holt vs. United
through the front door of Malaki's store with a blood-stained bolo States, ". . . is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral
Aided by the illumination coming from a pressure lamp compulsion, to extort communications from him . . ." It is simply a
("petromax") inside the store, Rondon clearly recognized Malimit prohibition against legal process to extract from
Batin immediately went out of the store to seek help. Outside the the [accused]'s own lips, against his will, admission of his guilt. It
store, he met Rondon . After a brief conversation, both Batin and does not apply to the instant case where the evidence sought to
Rondon rushed to the nearby house of Malaki's brother-in-law be excluded is not an incriminating statement but
Eutiquio Beloy and informed Beloy of the tragic incident which an object evidence. Wigmore, discussing the question now before
befell Malaki. Batin, along with Beloy, went back to the store. us in his treatise on evidence, thus, said:
Inside, they saw the lifeless body of Malaki in a pool of blood lying
prostrate at the floor. Beloy readily noticed that the store's drawer If, in other words (the rule) created inviolability not
was opened and ransacked and the wallet of Malaki was missing only for his [physical control of his] own vocal
from his pocket. utterances, but also for his physical control in
Jose Encarnacion Malimit, charged with and convicted of the special whatever form exercise, then, it would be possible
complex crime of robbery with homicide, was meted by the trial for a guilty person to shut himself up in his house,
court. with all the tools and indicia of his crime, and defy
Malimit claimed that the trial court erred in admitting the wallet as the authority of the law to employ in evidence
evidence as it is violative of his right against self-incrimination and anything that might be obtained by forcibly
that he was not informed of his "Miranda Rights" overthrowing his possession and compelling the
ISSUE: surrender of the evidential articles — a
Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting the wallet as clear reduction ad absurdum. In other words, it is
evidence. not merely compulsion that is the kernel of the
RULING: privilege, . . . but testimonial compulsion.
No. The Supreme Court held that:
Neither are we prepared to order the exclusion
The trial court DID NOT err in admitting the wallet as evidence of the questioned pieces of evidence pursuant
because Malimit's rights were not violated. to the provision of the Constitution under
Appellant asseverates that the admission as evidence of Malaki's Article III, Section 12, viz:
wallet together with its contents, viz., (1) Malaki's residence
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an other evidence and circumstances establishing appellant's identity
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to and guilt as perpetrator of the crime charged.
remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. RATIONALE:
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the Constitutional Law; Right Against Self-Incrimination; The right
presence of counsel. against self-incrimination is simply prohibition against legal process
to extract from the accused’s own lips, against his will, admission of
his guilt and does not apply where the evidence sought to be
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this
excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object evidence.
or Sec. 17 hereof, shall be inadmissible in evidence against Robbery with Homicide; Proof that the accused is in possession of a
him. stolen property gives rise to a valid presumption that he stole the
same.
These are the so-called "Miranda rights" so oftenly disregarded by
our men in uniform. However, infractions thereof render 10) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SAIBEN LANGCUA
inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made
FACTS:
during custodial investigation. The admissibility of other evidence,
provided they are relevant to the issue and is not otherwise
This case is a drug case wherein two different versions of the
excluded by law or rules, is not affected even if obtained or taken in facts are presented.
the course of custodial investigation. Concededly, appellant was not
informed of his right to remain silent and to have his own counsel Version of the Prosecution:
by the investigating policemen during the custodial investigation. On October 4, 2006, the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs and
Neither did he execute a written waiver of these rights in Special Operations (PAID-SO) at Camp Valentin, San Juan,
accordance with the constitutional prescriptions. Nevertheless, Laoag City got a report from a police informant about the
these constitutional short-cuts do not affect the admissibility of selling of illegal drugs by accused Langcua.
Malaki's wallet, identification card, residence certificate and keys A team was immediately formed to conduct the buy-bust
for the purpose of establishing other facts relevant to the crime. operation. Pre-operation activity was well recorded in the
Thus, the wallet is admissible to establish the fact that it was the
Police Blotter. They then proceeded to the place where
very wallet taken from Malaki on the night of the robbery. The
identification card, residence certificate and keys found inside the
Langcua, the poseurbuyer (PO1 Domingo) and informant
wallet, on the other hand, are admissible to prove that the wallet agreed to meet.
really belongs to Malaki. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo Langcua initated the sale by asking for the money. PO1
that these pieces of evidence are inadmissible, the same will not Domingo handed the marked money (P11,000) to Langcua and
detract from appellant's culpability considering the existence of thereafter the latter handed out one light blue colored folded
paper which contained a big heat-sealed plastic sachet with Langcua appealed to the CA but the appellate court affirmed
crystalline substance. the ruling of the RTC.
PO1 Domingo secured the plastic sachet and called the cellular
phone of their team leader. After which, he then grabbed the ISSUES:
right arm of Langcua. 5. Langcua was subjected to a body Whether the appellate court erred in holding that the initial
search where the buy-bust money, his cellular phone and contact on the alleged buy-bust operation was sufficiently
wallet were recovered. established
The confiscated white crystalline substance was brought to Whether the appellate court erred in giving credence to the
the Provincial Crime Lab for examination. testimonies of the police officers and the application of
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
Version of the Defense: Whether the appellate court erred in holding that the corpus
Langcua testified that upon returning home from the mosque, delicti of the crime charged has been properly established by
his wife instructed him to buy medicines for their sick child. the prosecution
Together with his friend, Ombawa Ali, they drove a motorcycle
until they were flagged down by three male persons who RULING:
introduced themselves as police officers. Langcua was The Court does not agree. The prosecution has adequately
allegedly forced by the police to go with them after the latter proven all the elements constituting sale of illegal drug. What
kicked his motorycle and strangled him. Ali ran away when he is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took
saw this. place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of
Langcua was brought to the police station where he was the corpus delicti. The commission of illegal sale merely
frisked. The police recovered his wallet containing P11,000. consummates the selling transaction, which happens the
When asked why he had such amount, he explained that he moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long
and his wife owned a carinderia and were saving to go home as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer,
to Mindanao. He also claimed to have been physically whose offer was accepted by seller, followed by the delivery
maltreated by the police officers and was accused of being of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already
confiscated with a plastic sachet of shabu. consummated. PO1 Domingo in open court identified the
Langcua was arraigned on April 16, 2007 where he pleaded white crystalline substance contained in the plastic sachet as
NOT GUILTY. On March 7, 2008, the trial court found the the one handed by Langcua to him during the buy-bust
Langcua GUILTY of violation of Sec 5, Article II of the operation. The substance yielded positive result for shabu. In
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 where he was sentenced to the case of People vs Kamad, the Court had the opportunity to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. enumerate the different links that the prosecution must prove
in order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust Case no. 11
operation, namely: First, the seizure and marking, if Kummer vs People
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by Evidence; Witnesses; Inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness
the apprehending officer; Second, the turnover of the illegal in open court, on one hand, and the statements in his sworn affidavit, on
drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating the other hand, referring only to minor and collateral matters, do not
officer; Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the affect his credibility and the veracity and weight of his testimony as they
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; do not touch upon the commission of the crime itself.―The Court has
consistently held that inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness
and Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal in open court, on one hand, and the statements in his sworn affidavit, on
drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. The Court the other hand, referring only to minor and collateral matters, do not
finds that the different links to establish the chain of custody affect his credibility and the veracity and weight of his testimony as they
are sufficiently established. Be it granted that there was no do not touch upon the commission of the crime itself. Slight contradictions,
strict observance of the procedure, as long as the integrity and in fact, even serve to strengthen the credibility of the witnesses, as these
may be considered as badges of truth rather than indicia of bad faith; they
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved tend to prove that their testimonies have not been rehearsed. Nor are
by the apprehending police officers, substantial compliance such inconsistencies, and even improbabilities, unusual, for no person has
with the procedure to establish a chain of custody is perfect faculties of senses or recall.
sanctioned. Instant appeal is DENIED.
Evidence; Motives; As held in a long line of cases, the prosecution
does not need to prove the motive of the accused when the latter has
RATIONALE: been identified as the author of the crime.―We agree with the CA’s ruling
The function of the chain of custody requirement is to ensure that motive gains importance only when the identity of the assailant is in
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are doubt. As held in a long line of cases, the prosecution does not need to
preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the prove the motive of the accused when the latter has been identified as the
identity of the evidence are removed. As long as the integrity author of the crime. Once again, we point out that the petitioner was
positively identified by Malana and Cuntapay. Thus, the prosecution did
and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly not have to identify and prove the motive for the killing. It is a matter of
preserved by the apprehending police officers, substantial judicial knowledge that persons have been killed for no apparent reason at
compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of custody all, and that friendship or even relationship is no deterrent to the
is sanctioned. commission of a crime.

Note: This case involves a crime of homicide. The facts are as follows:
1. On June 1988, between 9:00pm to 10:00pm Jesus Mallo Jr. accompanied sound of stones being thrown at their house, a gun report, and the banging
by AmielMalana went to house of Kummer (petitioner) at their door.

2. Mallo knocked at the front door with a stone and identified himself by 11. RTC = In its judgment RTC found the prosecution’s evidence persuasive
saying “Auntie, akosi Boy Mallo” based on the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Ramon Cuntapay
and Malana who both testified that the petitioner shot Mallo. The
3. The petitioner opened the door and at this point her son, and co- testimonial evidence, coupled by the positive findings of gunpowder
accused using his left hand shot Mallo twice using a gun about 6 inches nitrates on the left hand of Johan and on the petitioner’s hand, as well as
long. the corroborative testimony of the other prosecution witnesses, led the
RTC to find both the petitioner and Johan guilty beyond reasonable doubt
4. Malana who was with Mallo then witnessed the shooting and of the crime charged.
immediately ran towards the west followed by Mallo.
12. Johan, still a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, was
5. When Malana turned his back, he saw the petitioner leveling and firing released on the recognizance of his father, Moises Kummer. Johan
her long gun at Mallo hitting Mallo at the back and causing him to fall on subsequently left the country without notifying the court; hence, only the
the ground. petitioner appealed the judgment of conviction with the CA.

6. Thereafter the petitioner went inside the house and came out with a 13. The CA rejected the petitioner’s arguments and affirmed the RTC
flashlight. Together with her son (co-accused) she went to Mallo and judgment, holding that the discrepancies between the sworn statement
uttered “Johan patayna” in a loud voice. and the direct testimony of the witnesses do not necessarily discredit them
because the contradictions are minimal and reconcilable. The CA also ruled
7. Both of them pulled the body away from the house. After that, they that the inconsistencies are minor lapses and are therefore not substantial.
returned to the house and turned off all the lights. The petitioner’s positive identification by the eyewitnesses as one of the
assailants remained unrefuted.
8. The following morning, policeman Danilo Pelovello went to the
petitioner’s house and informed her that Mallo had been found dead in In sum, the CA found Malana and Cuntapay’s positive identification and
front of her house. Pelovello conducted an investigation through inquiries the corroborative evidence presented by the
among the neighbors, including the petitioner, who all denied having any prosecution more than sufficient to convict the petitioner of the crime
knowledge of the incident. charged.
9. The prosecution filed an information for homicide against the petitioner ISSUE: W/N CA committed a reversible error in affirming the RTC’s decision
and Johan. Both accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the in convicting the petitioner of the crime of homicide
crime charged. They waived the pre-trial, and the trial on the merits
accordingly followed. RULING:
NO, the CA did not err in affirming the decision of the RTC.
10. The petitioner denied the charge and claimed in her defense that she
and her children, Johan, Melanie and Erika, were already asleep in the 1st issue: Variance between the eyewitnesses’ testimonies in open court
evening of June 19, 1988. She claimed that they were awakened by the and their affidavits does not affect their credibility
1. In her attempt to impugn the credibility of prosecution eyewitnesses improbabilities, unusual, for no person has perfect faculties of senses or
Malana and Cuntapay, the petitioner pointed to the following recall.
inconsistencies:
6. A close scrutiny of the records reveals that Malana and Cuntapay
a. First, in paragraph 7 of Malana’s July 21, 1988 affidavit, he stated that positively and firmly declared in open court that they saw the petitioner
after hearing two gunshots, he dived to the ground for cover and Johan shoot Mallo. The inconsistencies in their affidavit, they
and heard another shot louder than the first two. This statement is reasoned, were due to the oversight of the administering official in typing
allegedly inconsistent with his declaration during the direct examination the exact details of their narration.
that he saw the petitioner and Johan fire their guns at Mallo.
7. It is often repeated that affidavits are usually abbreviated and
b. Second, the July 22, 1988 affidavit of Cuntapay likewise stated that inaccurate. Oftentimes, an affidavit is incomplete, resulting in its seeming
he heard two burst of gunfire coming from the direction of the petitioner’s contradiction with the declarant’s testimony in court. Generally, the affiant
house and heard another burst from the same direction, which statement is asked standard questions, coupled with ready suggestions intended to
is allegedly inconsistent with his direct testimony where he claimed that he elicit answers, that later turn out not to be wholly descriptive of the series
saw the petitioner shoot Mallo. of events as the affiant knows them. Worse, the process of affidavit-taking
may sometimes amount to putting words into the affiant’s mouth, thus
c. Third, in his affidavit, Malana declared that he ran away as he felt the allowing the whole statement to be taken out of context.
door being opened and heard two shots, while in his testimony in court, he 8. The court is not unmindful of these on-the-ground realities. In fact, we
stated that he ran away after Mallo was already hit. have ruled that the discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in
his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not
2. According to the petitioner, these and some other trivial and minor necessarily discredit him since ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete.
inconsistencies in the testimony of the two witnesses effectively destroyed
their credibility. 9. In the present case, the Court finds it undeniable that Malana and
Cuntapay positively identified the petitioner as one of the assailants. This is
3. Court ruled that these claims are far from convincing. the critical point, not the inconsistencies that the petitioner repeatedly
refers to, which carry no direct bearing on the crucial issue of the identity
4. The Court has consistently held that inconsistencies between the of the perpetrator of the crime. The inconsistencies refer only to minor
testimony of a witness in open court, on one hand, and the statements in details that are not critical to the main outcome of the case.
his sworn affidavit, on the other hand, referring only to minor and
collateral matters, do not affect his credibility and the veracity and weight 2nd Issue: Motive is irrelevant when the accused has been positively
of his testimony as they do not touch upon the commission of the crime identified by an eyewitness
itself.
1. Court held that motive gains importance only when the identity of the
5. Slight contradictions, in fact, even serve to strengthen the credibility of assailant is in doubt. As held in a long line of cases, the prosecution does
the witnesses, as these may be considered as badges of truth rather not need to prove the motive of the accused when the latter has been
than indication of bad faith; they tend to prove that their testimonies have identified as the author of the crime.
not been rehearsed. Nor are such inconsistencies, and even
2. Court points out that the petitioner was positively identified by Malana 8. Court finds it noteworthy that the lack or absence of motive for
and Cuntapay. Thus, the prosecution did not have to identify and prove the committing the crime does not preclude conviction where there are
motive for the killing. It is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have reliable witnesses who fully and satisfactorily identified the petitioner as
been killed for no apparent reason at all, and that friendship or even the perpetrator of the felony, such as in this case.
relationship is no deterrent to the commission of a crime.

3. The petitioner attempts to offer the justification that the witnesses did
not really witness the shooting as their affidavits merely attested that they
heard the shooting of Mallo (and did not state that they actually witnessed
it). Court held that this is a lame argument whose merit we cannot
recognize.

That Malana and Cuntapay have been eyewitnesses to the crime remains
unrefuted. They both confirmed in their direct testimony before the RTC
that they saw the petitioner fire a gun at Mallo. This was again reaffirmed
by the witnesses during their cross examination.

4. The fact that their respective affidavits merely stated that they heard
the gunshots does not automatically foreclose the possibility that they also
saw the actual shooting as this was in fact what the witnesses claimed truly
happened.

5. It has also been held that the claim that “whenever a witness discloses in
his testimony in court facts which he failed to state in his affidavit taken
ante litem motam, then an inconsistency exists between the testimony and
the affidavit” is erroneous.

6. If what were stated in open court are but details or additional facts that
serve to supplement the declarations made in the affidavit, these
statements cannot be ruled out as inconsistent and may be considered by
the court.

7. Thus, in light of the direct and positive identification of the petitioner as

one of the perpetrators of the crime by not one but two prosecution
eyewitnesses, the failure to cite the motive of the petitioner is of no
moment.
 received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. The same witnesses
would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been
no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone
not in the chain to have possession of the same. It is from the testimony of
every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance
can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as
that seized from the accused.

In authenticating narcotic specimens, a standard more stringent

than that applied to objects which are readily identifiable must be
applied—a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the
item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that
theoriginal item has either been exchanged with another or
contaminated or tampered with.—Although testimony about a perfect
chain does not always have to be the standard because it is almost always
Case no. 12 impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody indeed becomes
People vs Obmiranis indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is a narcotic
substance. A unique characteristic of narcotic substances such as shabu is
Dangerous Drugs Act; Chain of Custody Rule; Words and Phrases; that they are not distinctive and are not readily identifiable as in fact they
Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002 defines chain of custody as “the are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and
duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or nature. And because they cannot be readily and properly distinguished
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory visually from other substances of the same physical and/or chemical
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt nature, they are susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination,
in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for substitution and exchange—whether the alteration, tampering,
destruction.”—Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002 defines chain of contamination, substitution and exchange be inadvertent or otherwise not.
custody as “the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of It is by reason of this distinctive quality that the condition of the exhibit at
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs the time of testing and trial is critical. Hence, in authenticating narcotic
or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of specimens, a standard more stringent than that applied to objects which
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to are readily identifiable must be applied—a more exacting standard that
presentation in court for destruction.” As a method of authenticating entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only
evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of the to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged
exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the with another or contaminated or tampered with.
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would thus
include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item The state must be able to show by records or testimony the
was seized to the time it is offered in court as evidence, such that every continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came
person who handled the same would admit how and from whom it was into possession of police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to
determine its composition.—The Court certainly cannot reluctantly close which characterized the handling of the evidence before the same was
its eyes to the possibility of substitution, alteration or contamination— finally offered in court, materially conflict with every proposition as to the
whether intentional or unintentional—of narcotic substances at any of the culpability of the accused. For the same plain but consequential reason, we
links in the chain of custody thereof especially because practically such will not hesitate to reverse the judgment of conviction in the present
possibility is great where the item of real evidence is small and is similar in appeal.
form to other substances to which people are familiar in their daily lives.
Substance shown to be heroin was excluded from the prosecution
evidence because prior to examination, it was handled by two police
officers who, however, did not testify in court on the condition and FACTS:
whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it was in their possession. The court
in that case pointed out that the white powder seized could have been 1. This is an appeal filed by Samuel Obmiranis who was charged with
indeed heroin or it could have been sugar or baking powder. It thus violation of Sec 5 in relation to Sec 26 of RA 9165.
declared that the state must be able to show by records or testimony the
continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came 2. Samuel not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give
into the possession of police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to away to another any dangerous drug unlawfully attempt to sell or offer for
determine its composition. sale a substance known as SHABU, a dangerous drug.

Evidence; Failure of the prosecution to offer in court the testimony of key 3. Samuel was brought to trial. The prosecution then proceeded to prove
witnesses for the basic purpose of establishing a sufficiently complete the charge against him through the lone testimony of police officer
chain of custody of a specimen of shabu and the irregularity which Velasco, the alleged leader of the raiding team that apprehended Samuel
characterized the handling of the evidence before the same was finally in Manila.
offered in court, materially conflict with every proposition as to the
culpability of the accused.—In view of the deviation by the buy-bust team POLICE OFFICER VELASCO’S VERSION:
from the mandated conduct of taking post-seizure custody of the Police Pedrozo of the MWPD organized a buy-bust team on the
dangerous drug in this case, there is no way to presume that the members information of a confidential informant that the latter was able to place an
thereof had performed their duties regularly. Even granting that we must order for half a bulto of shabu with Samuel. Velasco was the designated
blindly rely on the credibility of Velasco’s testimony, still, the prosecution team leader and poseur-buyer with other police officers.
evidence would fall short of satisfying the quantum of evidence required to
arrive at a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the Pedrozo gave the team a marked 500-peso bill to be used as buy-bust
evidence chain failed to solidly connect appellant with the seized drug in a money which was placed on top of a deck of boodle money.
way that would establish that the specimen is one and the same as that
seized in the first place and offered in court as evidence. The Court cannot The informant joined Velasco in his car and they awaited the arrival of the
indulge in the presumption of regularity of official duty if only to obliterate appellant in Manila. When they saw Samuel, the informant introduced
the obvious infirmity of the evidence advanced to support appellant’s Velasco to Samuel and said that Velasco would like to buy shabu. Velasco
conviction. In Mallillin v. People,553 SCRA 619 (2008), we categorically negotiated with appellant to lower the price but the latter refused.
declared that the failure of the prosecution to offer in court the testimony
of key witnesses for the basic purpose of establishing a sufficiently Samuel showed the shabu and while Velasco recognized the item as a
complete chain of custody of a specimen of shabu and the irregularity plastic sachet or shabu, he effected the arrest but it was Cinco who seized
the plastic sachet from the appellant. Velasco stated that immediately ISSUE: W/N the chain of custody was properly observed in this case
after the arrest he and his team brought the seized iteam to the police
headquarters and there in his presence, Cinco marked the same with RULING:
initials “SOO”. 1. No, the chain of custody under the law was not properly observed in this
case. In view of these loopholes in the evidence adduced against
At the trial he identified the plastic sachet seized from Samuel as well as appellant, it can be reasonably concluded that the prosecution was unable
the marking made by Cinco. Furthermore he admitted on cross- to establish the identity of the dangerous drug and in effect failed to
examination that there was no evidence custodian designated and that he obliterate the hypothesis of appellant’s guiltlessness.
could not remember if the seized item had been inventoried and
photographed in the presence of the accused; 2. Cinco (another police officer), who, according to Velasco, took initial
custody of the plastic sachet at the time of arrest and who allegedly
Cinco put the item in his pocket after the same was recovered and did not marked the same with the initials “SOO” at the police station, was not even
mark it on the spot and that the markings made on the buy-bust money presented in court to directly observe the uniqueness of the specimen and,
had not been entered in the blotter. more importantly, to acknowledge the marking as his own. The same is
true with respect to the laboratory personnel who could have but
Chemistry report issued at the instance of Pedrozo and signed by the nevertheless failed to testify on the circumstances under which he
Forensic Chemical officer of the Pnp Crime Laboratory revealed that the received the specimen at the laboratory for analysis and testing, as well as
specimen is a drug specimen. on the conduct of the examination which was administered on the
specimen and what he did with it at the time it was in his possession and
4. SAMUEL’S VERSION: custody.
Samuel asserted that he was merely framed up by the buy-bust team and
strongly denied having transacted the alleged sale of shabu with Velasco 3. Aside from that, it was not reasonably explained why these same
and the informant. witnesses were not able to testify in court. While indeed the prosecution
and the defense had stipulated on the qualification of the forensic chemist,
5. RTC found Samuel guilty beyond reasonable doubt. dispensed with his testimony and admitted that said forensic chemist had
no personal knowledge of the ultimate source of the drug submitted for
6. Samuel appealed before the CA in which he reiterated that the examination, nevertheless, these stipulations and admission pertain only
prosecution was unable to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt in to a certain Elisa G. Reyes and not to Forensic Chemical Officer Maritess
view of the failure to establish the chain of custody of the illegal drugs and Mariano who, based on the chemistry report, was the one who examined
that it was likewise unable to establish the consummation of the alleged the contents of the plastic sachet at the crime laboratory.
sale of drugs.
4. Be that as it may, although testimony about a perfect chain does not
According to the OSG, it maintained that the chain of custody of the seized always have to be the standard because it is almost always impossible to
shabu had been duly established because the requirements in taking obtain, an unbroken chain of custody indeed becomes indispensable and
custody of the seized drugs admit of liberal interpretation. essential when the item of real evidence is a narcotic substance.

Thus, CA affirmed RTC’s findings. A unique characteristic of narcotic substances such as shabu is that they
are not distinctive and are not readily identifiable as in fact they are
subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. they had extended reasonable efforts to comply with the statutory
And because they cannot be readily and properly distinguished visually requirements in handling the evidence.
from other substances of the same physical and/or chemical nature, they
are susceptible to alteration, tampering, contaminationsubstitution and Velasco, the leader of the raiding team, himself admitted that as soon
exchangewhether the alteration, tampering, contamination, substitution as appellant was arrested, Cinco had taken custody of the plastic sachet
and exchange be inadvertent or otherwise not. It is by reason of this of shabu, placed it in his pocket and brought the same together with
distinctive quality that the condition of the exhibit at the time of testing appellant to the police station. It was at the police station—and not at the
and trial is critical. Hence, in authenticating narcotic specimens, a standard place where the item was seized from appellant—where according to him
more stringent than that applied to objects which are readily identifiable (Velasco), Cinco had placed the initials “SOO” on the specimen.
must be applied—a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody
of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable Velasco never even mentioned that the identifying mark on the
that the original item has either been exchanged with another or specimen was placed in Samuel’s presence; he could not even remember
contaminated or tampered with. whether or not the specimen had been properly inventoried and
photographed at least in appellant’s presence. Even more telling is the fact
5. The Court certainly cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the possibility of that, as elicited from Velasco himself during his cross-examination, no
substitution, alteration or contamination—whether intentional or evidence custodian had been designated by the raid ing team to safeguard
unintentional—of narcotic substances at any of the links in the chain of the identity and integrity of the evidence supposedly seized from
custody thereof especially because practically such possibility is great appellant.
where the item of real evidence is small and is similar in form to other
substances to which people are familiar in their daily lives 8. All these aforementioned flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody
of the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from Samuel, taken together
6. Reasonable safeguards are provided for in our drugs laws to protect the with the failure of the key persons who handled the same to testify on the
identity and integrity of narcotic substances and dangerous drugs seized whereabouts of the exhibit before it was offered in evidence in court,
and/or recovered from drug offenders. R.A. No. 9165 materially requires militates against the prosecution’s cause because it not only casts doubt on
the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs to, the identity of the corpus delicti but also tends to discredit, if not totally
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and negate, the claim of regularity in the conduct of official police operation.
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 Case No. 13
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required JUNIE MALILLIN y LOPEZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The same PHILIPPINES, respondent.
requirements are also found in Section 2 of its implementing rules as well
G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, Tinga, J.
as in Section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Drugs Board Regulation No. 1,
series
Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs; Chain of Custody Rule; The
7. These guidelines, however, were not shown to have been complied with mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a
by the members of the buy-bust team, and nothing on record suggests that reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding
of guilt—more than just the fact of possession, the fact that the
substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and
substance offered in court as exhibit must also be established with from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it
the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was
finding of guilt.—Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link
drugs necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
prohibited substance be established with moral certainty, together taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of
with the fact that the same is not authorized by law. The dangerous the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the possession of the same. While testimony about a perfect chain is
fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Essential not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to
therefore in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and
be established beyond doubt. Be that as it may, the mere fact of essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not
unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or
mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its
than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the
possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and
exhibit must also be established with the same unwavering even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit’s level
exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering—without
custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not —dictates
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule.
removed. 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
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to
requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence substances familiar to people in their daily lives.
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what
the proponent claims it to be; The likelihood of tampering, loss or A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not
mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis
small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature to determine their composition and nature—hence, in
and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that
lives. —As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable
custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of
by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it
question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item another or been contaminated or tampered with.—A unique
was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily
identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to therefor. Lest it be forgotten, the raiding team has had enough
determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot opportunity to cause the issuance of the warrant which means that
reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, it has had as much time to prepare for its implementation. While
that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there the final proviso in Section 21 of the rules would appear to excuse
could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances non-compliance therewith, the same cannot benefit the
from other cases—by accident or otherwise—in which similar prosecution as it failed to offer any acceptable justification for
evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for Esternon’s course of action.
laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard
more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which Searches and Seizures; The approval by the court which issued the
are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard search warrant is necessary before police officers can retain the
that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient property seized and without it, they would have no authority to
completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item retain possession thereof and more so to deliver the same to
has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or another agency—mere tolerance by the trial court of a contrary
tampered with. practice does not make the practice right because it is violative of
the mandatory requirements of the law and it thereby defeats the
Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. very purpose for the enactment.—Esternon’s failure to deliver the
9165 clearly outlines the post-seizure procedure in taking custody seized items to the court demonstrates a departure from the
of seized drugs—it mandates that the officer acquiring initial directive in the search warrant that the items seized be immediately
custody of drugs under a search warrant must conduct the delivered to the trial court with a true and verified inventory of the
photographing and the physical inventory of the item at the place same, as required by Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court.
where the warrant has been served.—Section 21 of the People v. Go, 411 SCRA 81 (2003) characterized this requirement as
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 clearly mandatory in order to preclude the substitution of or tampering
outlines the post-seizure procedure in taking custody of seized with said items by interested parties. Thus, as a reasonable
drugs. In a language too plain to require a different construction, it safeguard, People vs. Del Castillo, 439 SCRA 601 (2004) declared
mandates that the officer acquiring initial custody of drugs under a that the approval by the court which issued the search warrant is
search warrant must conduct the photographing and the physical necessary before police officers can retain the property seized and
inventory of the item at the place where the warrant has been without it, they would have no authority to retain possession
served. Esternon deviated from this procedure. It was elicited from thereof and more so to deliver the same to another agency. Mere
him that at the close of the search of petitioner’s house, he brought tolerance by the trial court of a contrary practice does not make the
the seized items immediately to the police station for the alleged practice right because it is violative of the mandatory requirements
purpose of making a “true inventory” thereof, but there appears to of the law and it thereby defeats the very purpose for the
be no reason why a true inventory could not be made in petitioner’s enactment.
house when in fact the apprehending team was able to record and
mark the seized items and there and then prepare a seizure receipt FACTS:
 The trial court declared petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt
On the strength of warrant of search and seizure issued by RTC of of the offense charged. The trial court reasoned that the fact
Sorsogon City, Police officers raided the residence of Junie Malillin y thatshabuwas found in the house of petitioner wasprima facie
Lopez (petitioner). The search allegedly yielded two (2) plastic evidence of petitioner'sanimus possidendi sufficient to convict him
sachets ofshabuand five (5) empty plastic sachets containing of the charge inasmuch as things which a person possesses or over
residual morsels of the said substance. Petitioner was charged with which he exercises acts of ownership are presumptively owned by
violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA No. 9165, or the Comprehensive him. It also noted petitioner's failure to ascribe ill motives to the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Petitioner entered a negative plea. At police officers to fabricate charges against him.
the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented P/Insp Bolanos, Arroyo Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the CA, calling the attention
, forensic chemist, and PO3 Esternon as witnesses. of the court to certain irregularities in the manner by which the
The evidence for the defense focused on the irregularity of the search of his house was conducted. The OSG advanced that on the
search and seizure conducted by the police operatives. Petitioner contrary, the prosecution evidence sufficed for petitioner’s
testified that PO3 Esternon began the search of the bedroom with conviction and that the defense never advanced any proof to show
Licup and petitioner himself inside. Petitioner was then asked by a that the members of the raiding team was improperly motivated to
police officer to buy cigarettes at a nearby store. Petitioner asserted hurl false charges against him and hence the presumption that they
that on his return from the errand, he was summoned by Esternon had regularly performed their duties should prevail.
to the bedroom and once inside, the officer closed the door and The CA affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
asked him to lift the mattress on the bed. And as he was doing as ISSUE:
told, Esternon stopped him and ordered him to lift the portion of Whether or not the chain of custody was established to warrant
the headboard. In that instant, Esternon showed him "sachet of conviction of the accused Mallillin.
shabu" which according to him came from a pillow on the bed. HELD:
Petitioner's account in its entirety was corroborated in its material No. Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs
respects by Norma, petitioner's mother,barangay kagawad, Licup necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a prohibited
and Sheila, petitioner’s wife in their testimonies. Norma and Sheila substance be established with moral certainty, together with the
positively declared that petitioner was not in the house for the fact that the same is not authorized by law. The dangerous drug
entire duration of the search because at one point he was sent by itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact
Esternon to the store to buy cigarettes while Sheila was being of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Essential
searched by the lady officer. Licup for his part testified on the therefore in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug
circumstances surrounding the discovery of the plastic sachets. He be established beyond doubt.Be that as it may, the mere fact of
recounted that after the five empty sachets were found, he went unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable
out of the bedroom and into the living room and after about three mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More
minutes, Esternon, who was left inside the bedroom, exclaimed that than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally
he had just found two filled sachets. possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as
exhibit must also be established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to
custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that substances familiar to people in their daily lives.
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not
removed. readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot
requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility,
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there
the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to from other cases--by accident or otherwise--in which similar
the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which
witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession tampered with.
of the same. A mere fleeting glance at the records readily raises significant
doubts as to the identity of the sachets of shabu allegedly seized
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard from petitioner. Of the people who came into direct contact with
because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain the seized objects, only Esternon and Arroyo testified for the
of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of specific purpose of establishing the identity of the evidence.
real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or Gallinera, to whom Esternon supposedly handed over the
when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a confiscated sachets for recording and marking, as well as Garcia, the
witness has failed to observe its uniqueness.The same standard person to whom Esternon directly handed over the seized items for
likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, chemical analysis at the crime laboratory, were not presented in
tampering, contaminationand even substitution and exchange.In court to establish the circumstances under which they handled the
other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, subject items.
alteration or tampering--without regard to whether the same is A mere fleeting glance at the records readily raises significant
advertent or otherwise not--dictates the level of strictness in the doubts as to the identity of the sachets of shabu allegedly seized
application of the chain of custody rule. from petitioner. Of the people who came into direct contact with
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to the seized objects, only Esternon and Arroyo testified for the
an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has specific purpose of establishing the identity of the evidence.
Gallinera, to whom Esternon supposedly handed over the
confiscated sachets for recording and marking, as well as Garcia, the team also raises serious doubts as to the necessity thereof. The
person to whom Esternon directly handed over the seized items for declaration of one of the police officers that he saw Sheila tuck
chemical analysis at the crime laboratory, were not presented in something in her underwear certainly diverted the attention of the
court to establish the circumstances under which they handled the members of petitioner's household away from the search being
subject items. conducted by Esternon prior to the discovery of the two filled
Also, contrary to what has been consistently claimed by the sachets. Lest it be omitted, the Court likewise takes note of
prosecution that the search and seizure was conducted in a regular Esternon's suspicious presence in the bedroom while Sheila was
manner and must be presumed to be so, the records disclose a being searched by a lady officer. The confluence of these
series of irregularities committed by the police officers from the circumstances by any objective standard of behavior contradicts the
commencement of the search of petitioner's house until the prosecution's claim of regularity in the exercise of duty.
submission of the seized items to the laboratory for analysis. The Moreover, Section 21of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Court takes note of the unrebutted testimony of petitioner, R.A. No. 9165 clearly outlines the post-seizure procedure in taking
corroborated by that of his wife, that prior to the discovery of the custody of seized drugs. In a language too plain to require a
two filled sachets petitioner was sent out of his house to buy different construction, it mandates that the officer acquiring initial
cigarettes at a nearby store. Equally telling is the testimony of custody of drugs under a search warrant must conduct the
Bolanos that he posted some of the members of the raiding team at photographing and the physical inventory of the item at the place
the door of petitioner's house in order to forestall the likelihood of where the warrant has been served. Esternon deviated from this
petitioner fleeing the scene. By no stretch of logic can it be procedure. It was elicited from him that at the close of the search of
conclusively explained why petitioner was sent out of his house on petitioner's house, he brought the seized items immediately to the
an errand when in the first place the police officers were in fact police station for the alleged purpose of making a "true inventory"
apprehensive that he would flee to evade arrest. This fact assumes thereof, but there appears to be no reason why a true inventory
prime importance because the two filled sachets were allegedly could not be made in petitioner's house when in fact the
discovered by Esternon immediately after petitioner returned to his apprehending team was able to record and mark the seized items
house from the errand, such that he was not able to witness the and there and then prepare a seizure receipt therefor. Lest it be
conduct of the search during the brief but crucial interlude that he forgotten, the raiding team has had enough opportunity to cause
was away. the issuance of the warrant which means that it has had as much
time to prepare for its implementation. While the final proviso in
It is also strange that, as claimed by Esternon, it was petitioner Section 21 of the rules would appear to excuse non-compliance
himself who handed to him the items to be searched including the therewith, the same cannot benefit the prosecution as it failed to
pillow from which the two filled sachets allegedly fell. Indeed, it is offer any acceptable justification for Esternon's course of action.
contrary to ordinary human behavior that petitioner would hand
over the said pillow to Esternon knowing fully well that illegal drugs Likewise, Esternon's failure to deliver the seized items to the court
are concealed therein. In the same breath, the manner by which the demonstrates a departure from the directive in the search warrant
search of Sheila's body was brought up by a member of the raiding that the items seized be immediately delivered to the trial court
with a true and verified inventory of the same, as required by Rule proponent claims it to be.—The prosecution, without an iota of
126, Section 12of the Rules of Court. doubt, has established the chain of custody and integrity of the
Given the foregoing deviations of police officer Esternon from the seized illegal items. The Supreme Court in People v. Sanchez, 569
standard and normal procedure in the implementation of the SCRA 194 (2008), clearly discussed how chain of custody should be
warrant and in taking post-seizure custody of the evidence, the proven, to wit: As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of
blind reliance by the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded
presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is manifestly by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
misplaced. The presumption of regularity is merely just that--a mere question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include
presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item
challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way
truth.Suffice it to say that this presumption cannot preponderate that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and
over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it
by proof beyond reasonable doubt.In the present case the lack of while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was
conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link
petitioner, coupled with the irregularity in the manner by which the in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
same were placed under police custody before offered in court, taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of
strongly militates a finding of guilt. the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same.

FACTS:

Accused-appellants Roger Posada (Roger) and Emily Posada (Emily)

were convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43, Virac,
Catanduanes, in Criminal Case No. 3490 for selling twelve (12)
pieces of transparent sealed plastic sachet, containing
Case No. 14 Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu with a total weight of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. ROGER POSADA y 0.4578 grams, in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
URBANO and EMILY POSADA y SARMIENTO, accused.
G.R. No. 194445, March 12, 2012, Reyes, J. Roger was also convicted by the same RTC in Criminal Case No. 3489
for possession of one piece of torn plastic sachet, containing residue
Remedial Law; Evidence; Chain of Custody Rule; As a method of of a crystalline substance (allegedly shabu), a piece of small
authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the aluminum foil, a pair of small scissors, and fifteen (15) pieces of
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to used lighter - all of which are intended to be used for smoking or
support a finding that the matter in question is what the introducing dangerous drugs into the body of a person, in violation
of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. (2) There is an alleged discrepancy as to the number of plastic
sachets recovered from the accused-appellants and those
Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, the accused-appellants filed an submitted to forensic chemist PSI Clemen.
appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA) which, via a Decision4
dated June 17, 2010, affirmed the RTC Decision as to the accused- Based on the records, the buy-bust operation, the arrest of the
appellants' conviction in Criminal Case No. 3490 but acquitted Roger accused-appellants and the confiscation of the illegal items
in Criminal Case No. 3489 on the ground of reasonable doubt. happened at around 12 noon of August 3, 2005.PO1 Area received
from Emily one sachet of shabu and after PO1 Area introduced
Now, the accused-appellants ask this Court for a complete himself and arrested Emily, 12 more sachets of shabu were found in
exoneration from the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 3490 on the possession of Emily. The said 12 sachets of shabu were inside a
the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of coin purse, with a bundle of money. PO1 Area prepared on the
custody and integrity of the seized illegal items and to prove their same day an RPSin the presence of Asuncion, Kagawad Sarmiento
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. and Vargas.On August 4, 2005, P/CI Tria requested for a laboratory
examination of a piece of small size heat-sealed transparent plastic
ISSUE: sachet, containing white crystalline substance marked with initial
"R"; 12 pieces of small size heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets,
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting the containing white crystalline substance with sub-markings "R-1" to
accused-appellants notwithstanding the prosecutions failure to "R-12"; and one small size crumpled aluminum foil and small size
establish the chain of custody and integrity of the alleged illegal plastic sachet. The request of P/CI Tria for laboratory examination
items. dated August 4, 2005 was received by PO2 Abanio and P/Insp. Sta.
Cruz on the same date.
HELD:
The accused-appellants wanted us to believe that a day had lapsed
No. The prosecution has established the chain of custody and before P/CI Tria submitted the illegal drugs to PNP Crime Laboratory
integrity of the seized illegal items. Service, contrary to the mandate of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
They even cited the testimony of P/CI Tria where the latter allegedly
The accused-appellants alleged that the prosecution failed to admitted submitting the subject seized items on August 4, 2005.
establish the chain of custody and integrity of the seized illegal However, a close look at the testimony of P/CI Triawill reveal that
items because: nothing in it would show that he submitted the alleged illegal drugs
beyond the 24-hour reglementary period. In fact, even the
(1) The apprehending officers allegedly failed to submit the Laboratory Examination Request dated August 4, 2005 does not
seized illegal items to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service for indicate violation of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.Clearly, from the
a qualitative and quantitative examination within the foregoing, the accused-appellants failed to adduce any evidence to
mandatory 24-hour period from confiscation; and prove their contention. The age-old but familiar rule that he who
alleges must prove his allegation appliesin this case. The accused- PSI Clemen's testimony tallies with the Laboratory Examination
appellants' failure to show evidence that the police officers did not Request (Exhibit "J") of P/CI Tria.
comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 gives us no other recourse
but to respect the findings of trial court and of the CA. After PO1 Area arrested Emily and confiscated the 13 sachets
of shabu (one bought by PO1 Area from Emily and 12 found in
Furthermore, the CA is correct in giving credence to the testimonies Emily's coin purse after she received the same from her husband
of the police officers as regards the timely submission of the subject Roger),P/CI Tria took pictures of the incident using his cellphone
illegal drugs since they are presumed to have regularly performed while the official photographer was also taking pictures.Then PO1
their duties, unless there is evidence suggesting ill-motive on the Area prepared an RPS, which Asuncion, Sarmiento and Vargas
part of the police officers. In this case, the accused-appellants failed witnessed.Meanwhile, SPO1 Aldave, seizing officer went inside the
to contradict the presumption. What goes against the accused- house of the accused-appellants, prepared and signed an RPS after
appellants is the fact that they have not offered any evidence of ill- the raiding team found a piece of aluminum foil, one plastic sachet
motive against the police officers. Emily even admitted that she did containing residue of white crystalline substance, one small pair of
not know PO1 Area, the poseur-buyer. Considering that there was green scissors beside the bed inside a room, 15 pieces of used
no existing relationship between the police officers and the lighters, and two pieces of P50.00 bill and one piece of P100.00 bill.
accused-appellants, the former could not be accused of improper Asuncion, Arcilla and Gonzales witnessed the preparation and
motive to falsely testify against the accused-appellants. signing of the said RPS. Thereafter, on August 4, 2005, P/CI Tria
requested for a laboratory examination of a piece of small size heat-
The accused-appellants also alleged that the integrity of the seized sealed transparent plastic sachet, containing white crystalline
illegal items was compromised and their evidentiary value substance marked with initial "R"; 12 pieces of small size heat
diminished because of the alleged discrepancy between the number sealed transparent plastic sachets, containing white crystalline
of plastic sachets recovered from the accused-appellants and those substance with sub-markings "R-l" to "R-12"; and one small size
submitted to forensic chemist PSI Clemen. They insisted that based crumpled aluminum foil and small size plastic sachet. The request of
on the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 3489 and 3490 and the P/CI Tria for laboratory examination dated August 4, 2005 was
testimonies of witnesses Asuncionand SPO1 Aldave, only fourteen received by a certain PO2 Abanio and P/Insp. Sta.
(14) plastic sachets were recovered from the accused-appellants, Cruz.Subsequently, witness PSI Clemen, the forensic expert,
while PSI Clemen allegedly testified that a total of 15 sachets were received personally from PO2 Abanio the above-mentioned marked
submitted for examination. pieces of evidence. She then immediately conducted a laboratory
examination, yielding a result that the 12 pieces of plastic sachets
However, a review of the defense-quoted testimony of PSI Clemen (with markings "R-l" to "R-12"), the one heat-sealed transparent
would show that she received one piece of small size heat-sealed plastic sachet with marking "R" and the one aluminum foil strip
transparent plastic sachet with marking "R", 12 pieces small size contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. In open court, the
heat-sealed marked as "R-l" to "R-12" and one small size crumpled above-mentioned pieces of evidence were identified and marked.
aluminum foil and small size plastic sachet— totaling to 15 items.
From the foregoing, the prosecution, without an iota of doubt, has PO1 Tuscano and PO1 Bernardo to a house in 26 Mabilis Street, Barangay
established the chain of custody and integrity of the seized illegal Piñahan, Quezon City at around 3 to 4 o’clock in the afternoon of 21
items. The Supreme Court in People v. Sanchez,clearly discussed December 2002. The house is reportedly owned by Coralde.
how chain of custody should be proven, to wit:
Upon arriving at the house, the door was slightly open. From the small
opening, PO1 Tuscano saw one male person, whom he called as Gerald or
Gerry Malabanan, lighting up an aluminum foil. When asked by the court
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule
to identify Malabanan, PO1 Tuscano mistakenly pointed to Fajardo. PO1
requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence Tuscano then identified Malabanan as the other male person he saw inside
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the house. PO1 Bernardo saw through the partial opening Malabanan with
the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about a lighter, while Coralde was holding a lighter and a tooter, and Fajardo, an
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to aluminum foil. PO1 Tuscano then explained that he and the other police
the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person officers introduced themselves and confiscated the drug paraphernalia
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was consisting of one lighter, scissor, aluminum foil and empty plastic sachet.
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the PO1 Tuscano confiscated the aluminum foil from Fajardo. These items
witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the were brought to the police station, turned over to the investigator, PO2
MerlitoTugo, who in turn, brought them to the crime laboratory.
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to
The three accused and two other witnesses testified for the defense.
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item
Fajardo said that he went to the house of Coralde to retrieve his cellphone
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession which he pawned to Coralde’s wife. Malabanan, on the other hand, alleged
of the same. that the wife of Coralde had asked him to go to her house to take her to
the hospital. Malabanan and Coralde’s two (2) sons were also inside the
In the instant case, the prosecution was able to present, not only house.
the corpus delicti, but the testimonies of the people involved in each
link in the chain of custody. They were asked to wait for Coralde’s wife, who was then taking a bath.
While waiting, the three accused watched the television. Malabanan said
he heard someone called out to a Paring Coring. Fajardo heard someone
knocking at the door and looking for a Pareng Buboy while Coralde heard a
voice from outside calling a certain ParengBoyong. Before anyone could
open the door, a group of men barged into the house. Coralde and Fajardo
Case no. 15 scampered to a connecting bathroom which leads to another room owned
by RemiaRuanto (Ruanto). Coralde explained that he ran towards the other
FAJARDO vs. PEOPLE house when some strangers came barging into his house because he was
caught by surprise. Fajardo followed Coralde because he got scared.
FACTS: Acting on a tip from a barangay official of an ongoing pot session, a
certain SPO4 Cilieto immediately dispatched six (6) police officers including
They were eventually caught inside Ruanto’s room. Meanwhile, Malabanan In Malillin v. People, the Court elucidated on the chain of custody rule,
stayed seated. He got shocked by the events that transpired and he thus:
immediately introduced himself as an employee of East Avenue Medical
Center. The police officers took the identification card and P400.00 cash As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires
from his wallet. that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims
The three accused were handcuffed, boarded to a car, and brought to the it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the
police station. They were brought to Caloocan City for inquest. They all moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in
denied that they were having a pot session. Fajardo claims that he saw the such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how
confiscated drug paraphernalia for the first time during their inquest. and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it
while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and
RTC found Fajardo guilty the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there
CA affirmed had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for
someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
ISSUE: WON the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the guilt of petitioners. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the crucial first link in the chain
of custody. The prosecution witnesses, both arresting officers, testified on
how the plastic sachets containing traces of shabu were seized from
RULING: NO.
petitioners. PO1 Tuscano, who even made a mistake in identifying Fajardo
as Malabanan, gave a rather vague account.
In order for prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to
prosper, there must be proof that (1) the accused was in possession of an
Second, none of the dangerous drugs enumerated above and more
item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such
specifically, shabu, were convincingly proven to have been in possession of
possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and
petitioners. On the other hand, possession of drug paraphernalia is dealt
consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.
with in Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.
In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself
Another phase of the first link to the chain of custody is the marking of
constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to
seized items. The rule requires that it should be done in the presence of
sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure
reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in
that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the
establishing the corpus delicti. The chain of custody rule performs this
ones offered in evidence. Evidently, the marking was not done at the scene
function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of
of the crime. In fact, PO1 Bernardo testified that it was an investigator of
the evidence are removed. The rule seeks to settle definitively whether the
the crime laboratory, whose name he cannot recall, who made the
object evidence subjected to laboratory examination and presented in
markings. Indeed, PO1 Bernardo could not explain the actual markings.
court is the same object allegedly seized from appellant.
The prosecution miserably failed to establish the crucial first link in the bears stressing that the presumption of regularity only arises in the
chain of custody.1âwphi1The plastic sachets, while tested positive for absence of contradicting details that would raise doubts on the regularity
shabu, could not be considered as the primary proof of the corpus delicti in the performance of official duties. Where the police officers failed to
because the persons from whom they were seized were not positively and comply with the standard procedure prescribed by law, there is no
categorically identified by prosecution witnesses. The prosecution likewise occasion to apply the presumption.
failed to show how the integrity and evidentiary value of the item seized
had been preserved when it was not explained who made the markings, Case no. 16
how and where they were made.
ZAFRA vs. PEOPLE
The second link in the chain of custody constitutes custody and possession
of the shabu prior, during and immediately after the police investigation FACTS: That on or about the 12th day of June, 2003, in the municipality of
and how the shabu was stored, preserved, labeled and recorded from the Balagtas, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
time of its seizure up to its receipt by the crime laboratory. PO1 Tuscano this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law
merely identified PO2 Tugo as the one who brought the confiscated items and legal justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
to the crime laboratory. But it was not clear whether it was PO2 Tugo who feloniously have in their possession and control dangerous drug consisting
received the seized items from the police officers who arrived at the police of two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of methylamphetamine
station. In the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, the police officers stated "that all hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.061gram, in conspiracy with one
the recovered evidence were confiscated and properly handled and another.
transported to this Station for safekeeping" without stating the particulars.
Moreover, no details were given as to who was in custody of the seized
The prosecution’s lone witness, SPO4 Apolinario Mendoza (SPO4
items while in transit. Thus, the reliability, nay existence of the second link,
Mendoza), Chief of the Investigation and Drug Enforcement Unit of the
had clearly been compromised.
Philippine National Police of Balagtas, Bulacan, testified that on 12 January
2003, at around 4:30 in the afternoon, he conducted surveillance in front
The third link in the chain should detail who brought the seized shabu to of a sari-sari store at the corner of Miraflor Subdivision and P. Castro Street
the crime laboratory, who received the shabu at the crime laboratory and, in Balagtas, Bulacan, due to reported drug trafficking in the area. SPO4
who exercised custody and possession of the shabu after it was examined Mendoza found there the group of Zafra, Marcelino, and a certain Marlon
and before it was presented in court. Once again, these crucial details were Daluz (Daluz) standing and facing each other.In that position, he saw Zafra
nowhere to be found in the records. PO2 Tugo allegedly brought them to and Marcelino holding shabu, while Daluz was holding an aluminum foil
the crime laboratory but he was not presented to affirm and corroborate and a disposable lighter. Seeing this illegal activity, SPO4 Mendoza single-
PO1 Tuscano’s statement, nor was any document shown to evidence the handedly apprehended them. He grabbed the shabu from the hands of
turnover of the seized items. The Request for Laboratory Examination was Zafra and Marcelino, and confiscated the drug paraphernalia from Daluz.
signed by a certain Police Senior Inspector Rodolfo Tababan. But his Then, he ordered the three to lie down; he frisked them. Boarding a
participation in the custody and handling of the seized items were never tricycle, he brought them to the Balagtas Police Station, where he
mentioned by the prosecution witnesses. personally marked the confiscated two (2) sachets of shabu, one with VSD,
the initials of Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and the other with EMR, the initials
Considering these huge discrepancies in the chain of custody, the claim of of Eroll Marcelino y Reyes.
regularity in the conduct of police operation will certainly not hold water. It
On the following day, 13 June 2003, SPO4 Mendoza brought the accused Certainly, SPO4 Mendoza’s credibility has to be thoroughly looked into,
and the items to the crime laboratory for urine sampling and laboratory being the only witness in this case. While in his affidavit, SPO4 Mendoza
examination, respectively.The test of the items resulted to positive claimed that he saw the sachet of shabu (0.30 gram) because Zafra was in
presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. the act of handing it to Marcelino, his testimony during the direct
examination reveals another version, that is, from a distance, he saw Zafra
RTC decided for the conviction and Marcelino holding shabu, respectively, hence, he approached them
from behind and confiscated the shabu from both of them and the
CA affirmed paraphernalia from Daluz. How he saw a 0.30 gram of shabu from a
distance in a busy street, baffles this Court. Asked, however, on cross
examination, who among the three were holding the shabu and drug
ISSUE: WON the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
paraphernalia, SPO4 Mendoza failed to be consistent with his earlier
the guilt of petitioners.
testimony and pointed to Daluz as the one holding shabu with a
handkerchief in his hand and Zafra as the one in possession of drug
RULING: NO.
paraphernalia. These inconsistencies are not minor ones, and, certainly,
not among those which strengthens the credibility of a witness. Possession
First, the prosecution’s lone witness, SPO4 Mendoza,testified that, from a of drug paraphernalia vis-à-vis shabu, are two different offenses under RA
distance, he saw Zafra and Marcelino holding shabu by their bare hands, No. 9165. That Zafra was holding drug paraphernalia and not shabu is
respectively, while Daluz was holding an aluminum foil and a disposable material to this case, to the accusation against him, and to his defense.
lighter.Seeing this illegal activity, he single-handedly apprehended
them. He grabbed the shabu from the hands of Zafra and Marcelino, and
Second, a reading of the RTC decision on this matter reveals that the
confiscated the drug paraphernalia from Daluz.
conviction was arrived at upon reliance on the presumption of regularity in
the performance of Mendoza’s official duty.
On cross examination, SPO4 Mendoza testified that it was Zafra and not
Daluz, who was holding the aluminum foil (contrary to his earlier testimony
It is noteworthy, however, that presumption of regularity in the
that Zafra was holding shabu); that Daluz (whom he claimed during the
performance of official functions cannot by its lonesome overcome the
direct examination to be holding the aluminum foil) and Marcelino were
constitutional presumption of innocence. Evidence of guilt beyond
holding handkerchiefs and on top of them were shabu; When the defense
reasonable doubt and nothing else can eclipse the hypothesis of
confronted SPO4 Mendoza about the inconsistency, he told the court that guiltlessness. And this burden is met not by bestowing distrust on the
his version during his direct testimony was the correct one.
innocence of the accused but by obliterating all doubts as to his culpability.

While, it is hornbook doctrine that the evaluation of the trial court on the
Third, SPO4 Mendoza was the lone arresting officer, who brought the
credibility of the witness and the testimony is entitled to great weight and
petitioners to the police station, who himself marked the confiscated
is generally not disturbed upon appeal, such rule does not apply when the
pieces of evidence sans witnesses, photographs, media, and in the absence
trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact of
of the petitioners. His colleagues were nowhere. And, worse, he was the
weight or substance. In the instant case, these circumstances are present, same person who took custody of the same pieces of evidence, then,
that, when properly appreciated, would warrant the acquittal of
brought them on his own to the crime laboratory for testing.No inventory
petitioners.
was ever done;no inventory was presented in court.
The solo performance by SPO4 Mendoza of all the acts necessary for the The records readily raise significant doubts as to the identity of the sachets
prosecution of the offense is unexplained and puts the proof of corpus of shabu allegedly seized from Zafra and Marcelino. SPO4 Mendoza’s claim
delicti, which is the illegal object itself in serious doubt. No definite answer that the two sachets of shabu presented in court were the same ones
can be established regarding the question as to who possessed what at the confiscated from the petitioners, cannot be taken at its face value, solely
time of the alleged apprehension. More significantly, we are left in doubt on the presumption of regularity of one’s performance of duty. SPO4
whether not the two sachets of shabu allegedly seized from the petitioners Mendoza blatantly broke all the rules established by law to safeguard the
were the very same objects offered in court as the corpus delicti. identity of a corpus delicti. There was even no mention about the details of
the laboratory examination of the allegedly seized drugs. To allow this to
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the happen is to abandon everything that has been said about the necessity of
elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be established with proving an unbroken chain of custody. SPO4 Mendoza cannot alone satisfy
moral certainty.The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus the requirements in RA No. 9165 which is anchored on, expressly, the
delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of participation of several personalities and the execution of specified
conviction.Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the documents.
prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.Be that as it may, the mere
fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable And, while jurisprudence has refined the enumerated duties of an
mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More than apprehending officer in a drug case and has thus described the equivalent
just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally possessed in requirements for a proper chain of custody of the corpus delicti, still, the
the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also case at bar cannot pass the constitutional requirement of proof beyond
be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to reasonable doubt.
make a finding of guilt.The chain of custody requirement performs this
function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity The present petition is the sum total of all the violations committed in the
of the evidence are removed. cases cited above.

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires Lest the chain of custody rule be misunderstood, we reiterate that non-
that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements does not
support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims necessarily render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid;
it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the the seizure may still be held valid, provided that (a) there is a justifiable
moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value
such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how of the seized items are shown to have been properly preserved.These
and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it conditions, however, were not met in the present case as the prosecution
while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and did not even attempt to offer any justification for the failure of SPO4
the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.These Mendoza to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there items.1âwphi1 As we held in People v. De Guzman,the failure to follow the
had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for procedure mandated under RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and
someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. Regulations must be adequately explained. The justifiable ground for the
non-compliance must be proven as a fact. The Court cannot presume what
these grounds are or that they even exist.
In our constitutional system, basic and elementary is the presupposition other pertinent documents. An inventory of the seized itemswas also
that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecution prepared which was signed by KagawadPamintuan. Thereafter, PO2 Corpuz
which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the brought the confiscated drugs to the PNP Crime Lab for examination,
weakness of the defense.The rule is invariable whatever may be the which subsequently yielded positive results for marijuana.
reputation of the accused, for the law presumes his innocence unless and
until the contrary is shown.In dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to Both Dahil and Castro claimed in different occasions that it was a frame-
culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably up.
becomes a matter of right.
RTC: Accused liable for violating Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165.
CASE NO. 19 Prosecution was able to prove the case of selling and possession of illegal
CHAIN OF CUSTODY drugs against the accused. All the elements of the crimes were established.

PEOPLEvs.RAMIL DAHIL& ROMMEL CASTRO, Accused-Appellants. CA: Affirmed RTC; appeal denied. In its view, the prosecution was able to
establish that the illegal sale of marijuana actually took place.
FACTS:
ISSUE
The agents of PDEA conducted surveillance operations for a couple of
weeks relative to the information they received that accused were WON the chain of custody procedure was substantially complied with
trafficking dried marijuana in TB Pavilion, Marisol Subdivision, Barangay
Ninoy Aquino, Angeles City. Thus, a team which consisted of 4 police RULING: No; accused acquitted
officers was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation.
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and
PO2 Corpuz together with the informant went to the house of Dahil where custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of
they met Dahil and Castro. Dahil asked PO2 Corpuzhow much he wanted dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
and the latter answered that he would buy ₱200.00 worth. Dahil took out seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
from his pocket six (6) plastic sachets of marijuana and handed them to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and
PO2 Corpuz. After checking the items, PO2 Corpuz handed two (2) ₱100.00 custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
marked bills to Castro.Immediately thereafter, PO2 Cruz took off his cap to person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time
signal that the sale had been consummated. The rest of the buy-bust team when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and
then rushed to their location and arrested Castro and Dahil, where they use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
recovered from the possession of Dahil another five (5) sachets of
marijuana and one (1) brick of suspected marijuana from Castro.
The strict procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (chain of custody)
was not complied with.
Both Castro and Dahil, together with the confiscated drugs, were then
brought by the buy-bust team to the PDEA office. There, the seized items
The said provision requires the apprehending team, after seizure and
were marked by PO2 Corpuz and SPO1Licu. Sergeant dela Cruz then
confiscation, to immediately (1) conduct a physical inventory; and (2)
prepared the request for laboratory examination, affidavits of arrest and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/orseized, or his/her representative investigating officer or they had custody of the marijuana all night while
or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected SPO4 Jamisolamin was conducting his investigation on the same items.
public official who shall be required tosign the copies of the inventory and
be given a copy thereof. Lastly, the forensic chemist had no knowledge as to who received the
seized marijuana at the crime laboratory as can be gleaned from her
First,the inventory of the property was not immediately conducted after certification, stating that she had no personal knowledge as from whom
seizure and confiscation as it was only done at the police station. The and where the substance was taken.
prosecution also failed to give sufficient justification for the delayed
conduct of the inventory. The prosecution failed to establish that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items were preserved.
Notably, Sec. 21 of the IRR allows the inventory to be done at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team whichever Based on the foregoing, the Court can only conclude that, indeed, there
is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures, as long as it is done in the was no compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A.
presence of the accused, and the integrity of the seized items were No. 9165 because of the inadequate physical inventory and the lack of
preserved. In this case, however, the prosecution did not even claim that photography of the marijuana allegedly confiscated from Dahil and Castro.
the PDEA Office Region 3 was the nearest office from TB Pavilion where No explanation was offered for the non-observance of the rule. The
the drugs were seized. prosecution cannot apply the saving mechanism of Section 21 of the IRR of
R.A. No. 9165 because it miserably failed to prove that the integrity and
Hence, from the place of the seizure to the PDEA Office Region 3, the the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The four links
seized items were not marked immediately. It could not, therefore, be required to establish the proper chain of custody were breached with
determined how the unmarked drugs were handled. Evidently, the irregularity and lapses.
alteration and mix-up of the seized items was a possibility absent their
immediate marking thereof. There was also no showing that the markings The Court has ruled in People v. Kamad,that the links that must be
were made in the presence of the accused. established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first, the
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
Second, there were conflicting claims on whether the seized items were accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal
photographed in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third,
counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
public official. The testimonies of the police officers were inconsistent and chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and
did not corroborate each other. submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to
the court.
Third, there was no testimony from the witnesses as to the turnover of the
seized items to the investigator SPO4 Jamisolamin. It is highly improbable RATIONALE
for an investigator in a drug-related case toeffectively perform his work
without having custody of the seized items. Again, the case of the Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish the rigorous
prosecution is forcing this Court to resort to guesswork as to whether PO2 requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, jurisprudence dictates that
Corpuz and SPO1 Licu gave the seized drugs to SPO4 Jamisolamin as the substantial compliance is sufficient. Failure to strictly comply with the law
does not necessarily render the arrestof the accused illegal or the items been in communication via SMS with accused as to the amount of shabu to
seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.The issue of non-compliance be purchased, and their location and time.
with the said section is not of admissibility, but of weight to be given on
the evidence.Moreover, Section 21 of the IRR requires "substantial" and When PO3 Palabay noticed accused coming his way, he disembarked from
not necessarily "perfect adherence," as long as it can be proven that the the tricycle in which he had been waiting. Accusedimmediately handed to
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved as the him a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance;
same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of and PO3 Palabaygave accusedthe marked money (6pcs P50.00 bills).
the accused. [however, there was no substantial compliance in this case] Accused then counted the money while PO3 Palabay removed his cap to
signal the arrest to the other police officers. Accusedattempted to flee but
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires was subsequently arrested by the other officers. PO3 Palabay informed
that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to accused-appellant of his consti rights; took a photograph of the latter as
support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims well as the area and the plastic sachet which he marked "AJP-1-11." He
it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the also made an inventory of the marked money and the seized plastic sachet
moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in in the presence of the Barangay Captain and another witness.
such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how
and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it Accused was thereafter brought to the police station. There, PO3 Palabay
while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and executed an affidavit of arrest, an affidavit of poseur-buyer and a request
the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These for laboratory examination. Then, he brought accused-appellant and the
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there seized items to the crime laboratory, received by PSI Antonio. The
had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for Chemistry Report signed by the Forensic Chemist found the seized plastic
someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. sachet positive for the presence ofshabu.

Accused, the lone witness for the defense, claimed that it was a frame-up.

CASE NO. 20 RTC: Accused guilty of attempted sale of less than 1 gram of shabu; life
imprisonment+500k fine
PEOPLEvs.ROMEL SAPITULA, Accused-Appellant.
However, there is a catch provided in Section 26 of R.A. 9165 which
FACTS prescribes the same penalty as that provided in Section 5 in case of
unlawful acts that are enumerated in the aforesaid Section 26, thus the
Accusedwas charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. penalty for attempt or conspiracy to commit violations thereof as provided
Police received a tip from an informant that accused was selling shabu. in Section 26 is the same as that provided in Section 5. DURA LEX SED LEX
Upon verification of accused-appellant’s involvement in illegal drug is invoked.
activities through surveillance and casing operations, PO3 Palabay made a
successful test-buy operation of P300.00 worth of shabu.Thereafter, PSI CA: Affirmed RTC with modifications; sale was consummated as there had
Gagaoin headed and organized a buy-bust team. PO3 Palabay had already been an exchange of money and the sachet of shabu between PO3 Palabay
and accused.
ISSUE reasonable doubt that accused-appellant sold shabu. Thus, penalty and
fine was correct.
WON the chain of custody was complied with to merit conviction
(2) Consummated, not attempted: The Courtupholds the CA’s ruling that
RULING: Yes. the crime of sale of a dangerous drug, in this case shabu, was
consummated. In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following
(1) Chain of custody: We now come to accused-appellant’s contention that elements must be sufficiently proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs as seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of
provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, was not complied with as the the thing sold and the payment therefor.
police officers had not conducted an inventory of the plastic sachet
of shabu and the same had not been photographed in the presence of The Court finds that all elements for illegal sale were duly established
accused-appellant and representatives from the media and the withaccused-appellant having been caught in
Department of Justice. flagrantedelicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation. PO3 Palabay,
who acted as the poseur buyer, testified that accused-appellant handed to
A review of PO3 Palabay’s testimony shows that the inventory and him the plastic sachet containing the prohibited drug in exchange for
photograph requirements had been met. More importantly, the integrity P300.00.This was corroborated by PSI Gagaoin who was strategically
and evidentiary value of the seized items were duly preserved as the chain posted within the perimeter of the target area.
of custody remained intact. The links in the chain of custody were properly
complied with, to wit: The result of the laboratory examination confirmed the presence
of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu on the white crystalline
PO3 Palabay, the poseur buyer, positively testified that he placed in his substance inside the plastic sachet received from the accused-appellant.
pocket the plastic sachet of shabu handed to him by accused-appellant. At The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the
the time of arrest, he photographed accused-appellant, the area and the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust
sachet of shabu, marked the same and conducted the inventory before the transaction. His decision to immediately try to flee after the fact is
Barangay Chairman and another witness. PO3 Palabay further testified that immaterial.
he brought accused-appellant and the sachet of shabu to the police
station, and there, executed affidavits of arrest and of the poseur buyer Accused-appellant’s denial of the charges and assertion of a frame-up,
and made a request for laboratory examination. PO3 Palabay then took uncorroborated by any positive testimony. Besides, as adequately
accused-appellant and the sachet of shabu to the crime laboratory and the explained by PSI Antonio, the absence of ultraviolet (UV) powder on
latter was received by PSI Antonio. The chemistry report was by the accused-appellant’s palms (although the dorsal parts of accused-
Forensic Chemist, and the Administering Officer confirmed that the sachet appellant’s hands tested positive for UV powder presence) may have been
is positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. And a result of perspiration, wiping or rubbing the hand on a hard
finally, in open court, PO3 Palabay opened the envelope from the Forensic object.21 Thus, this matter does not completely negate accused-appellant’s
Chemist and identified its contents as the same sachet of shabu he had culpability as he so asserts.
purchased from accused-appellant. The same was offered in evidence and
marked as Exhibit "A." All told, it has been established by proof beyond RATIONALE
The links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, such
situation are: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the inadmissible in evidence.—Although ideally the prosecution should offer a
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the perfect chain of custody in the handling of evidence, “substantial
investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, item” is sufficient. This Court has consistently ruled that even if the
the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements under
forensic chemist to the court. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not
render the items seized inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost
CASE NO. 23 importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
G.R. No. 200336. February 11, 2015.* seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused. In other words, to be admissible in
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROWENA evidence, the prosecution must be able to present through records or
TAPUGAY y VENTURA, accused-appellant. testimony, the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time these
were seized from the accused by the arresting officers; turned over to the
Denials; Frame-Up; The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the defense of investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of
denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts their composition; and up to the time these are offered in evidence. For as
with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, even though
standard defense ploy in most prosecution for violation of the Dangerous the procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was
Drugs Act.—Rowena’s defense which is anchored principally on denial and not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.
frame-up cannot be given credence. It does not have more evidentiary The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved
weight than the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses. Her unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence
defense is unavailing considering that she was caught in flagrante delicto in has been tampered with.—We have previously ruled that as long as the
a legitimate buy-bust operation. This Court has ruled that the defense of state can show by record or testimony that the integrity of the evidence
denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with has not been compromised by accounting for the continuous whereabouts
disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and of the object evidence at least between the time it came into the
standard defense ploy in most prosecution for violation of the Dangerous possession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory, then
Drugs Act. Moreover, we noted the inconsistency in the position of the the prosecution can maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of the
defense. The defense witnesses maintain that the police officers searched accused beyond reasonable doubt. The integrity of the evidence is
and dipped their hands in the pocket of Rowena but did not find any presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill
money. During pretrial, however, the defense admitted that the police will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Appellant bears
officers recovered from Rowena one (1) Five-Hundred-Peso bill bearing the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in
serial number JN 693285. It would be difficult to comprehend how the order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits
Php500.00 bill which was documented on the police blotter report ended by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly
with Rowena unless she received this from PO2 Garcia during the buy-bust discharged their duties. Appellant in this case failed to present any
operation. plausible reason to impute ill motive on the part of the arresting officers.
Chain of Custody Rule; The Supreme Court (SC) has consistently ruled that Thus, the testimonies of the apprehending officers deserve full faith and
even if the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the credit. In fact, she did not even question the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses. She anchored her appeal primarily on denial and the alleged examination. Police Inspector ValerianoPanemLaya II (P/Insp. Laya), a
broken chain of the custody of the seized drugs. Forensic Chemist, testified that he conducted an examination on the white
crystalline substance and found that it is positive for methamphetamine
FACTS: hydrochloride.19

Version of the Prosecution Version of the Defense

On 28 November 2003, at around 7 o’clock in the evening, the Chief of Appellant denied the accusations against her. The defense insisted that
the Intelligence Section of the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Laoag Rowena was having dinner inside her house at around 8 o’clock in the
City, SPO3 RovimanuelBalolong (SPO3 Balolong), received a phone call evening of 28 November 2003 when police officers suddenly entered and
from a concerned citizen reporting the illegal drug activities of Rowena grabbed her. She was allegedly searched but the policemen did not find
Tapugay (Rowena). A team was immediately formed to conduct a buy-bust anything inside her pocket. Rowena was thereafter forced outside her
operation.5Before proceeding to the target area, the team discussed the house, placed inside a police car, and brought to the police station.
details of the operation as follows: (i) PO2 Garcia, who was designated as
the poseur-buyer,7would use a Five-Hundred-Peso (Php500.00) bill marked
with the initials “RVB”8 and with serial number SNJN 6932859 to ISSUE:
buy shabu from appellant who was described as fat with long hair and
wearing a sleeveless red shirt; and (ii) the rest of the team would serve as Whether the trial court gravely erred in convicting appellant despite the
his backup.10 arresting officer’s noncompliance with the requirements for the proper
Upon arrival at the locus criminis PO2 Garcia approached the woman in custody of seized dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165.
a red sleeveless shirt and told her that he was going to buy shabu worth
(Php500.00).11 HELD:
PO2 Garcia then handed to appellant the marked Five-Hundred-Peso
(Php500.00) bill. Appellant thereafter pocketed the money and asked PO2 We find the appeal bereft of merit and affirm appellant’s guilt.
Garcia to come near her. Appellant then reached inside her jeans’ pocket Rowena submits that the trial court failed to consider the procedural
to get the shabu and handed it to PO2 Garcia.12 flaws committed by the arresting officers in the seizure and custody of
It was at this time that PO2 Garcia introduced himself as a police drugs as embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II, of R.A. No.
officer and grabbed appellant.13 The other members of the team then 9165.26 She alleged that other than the defective marking of a police
rushed in to assist PO2 Garcia in arresting the suspect.14 SPO3 Balolong investigator, who was not even part of the buy-bust team, no physical
recovered from Rowena the marked Php500.00 bill. 15 Appellant was not inventory was made or a photograph of the seized item was ever
able to produce any document showing her authority to sell shabu when taken.27 Further, she averred that the laboratory examination of the
asked by SPO3 Balolong. After informing appellant of her constitutional confiscated item was done three days after its seizure and the report
rights, the arresting team brought her to the police station. 17 The marked thereon released five days thereafter.28 She maintained that such failure
Php500.00 bill and the seized suspected shabu placed inside a plastic casts doubt on the validity of her arrest and the identity of shabu allegedly
sachet were turned over to SPO2 Loreto Ancheta (SPO2 Ancheta), the seized and confiscated from
Evidence Custodian of the Investigation Section.18 her, forwarded by the apprehending officers to the investigating
The plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was then sent officer, to the crime laboratory for examination, and later presented in
to the PNP Crime Laboratory in San Fernando, La Union for laboratory court.
 Relevant to the instant case is the procedure to be followed in the as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the
custody and handling of the seized dangerous drugs as outlined in Section procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not
21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected. 32
9165, which states: Here, the prosecution successfully established the unbroken chain of
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control custody over the seized drugs.
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically Anent the alleged delay in the examination of the seized item, the
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the prosecution was able to explain through P/Insp. Laya that the examination
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her cannot be immediately done because of the distance of the police station
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the to the crime laboratory. It was noted that the apprehension of Rowena
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be occurred in Laoag City while the PNP Crime Laboratory is in San Fernando,
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy La Union.
thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be We have previously ruled that as long as the state can show by record or
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the testimony that the integrity of the evidence has not been compromised by
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending accounting for the continuous whereabouts of the object evidence at least
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless between the time it came into the possession of the police officers until it
seizures; Provided, further, that noncompliance with these requirements was tested in the laboratory, then the prosecution can maintain that it was
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending Appellant in this case failed to present any plausible reason to impute ill
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody motive on the part of the arresting officers. Thus, the testimonies of the
over said items[.] apprehending officers deserve full faith and credit. 40In fact, she did not
even question the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
The last part of the aforequoted issuance provided the exception to the
strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
Although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect chain of custody in
the handling of evidence, “substantial compliance with the legal
requirements on the handling of the seized item” is sufficient. 29 This Court
has consistently ruled that even if the arresting officers failed to strictly
comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such
procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized
inadmissible in evidence.30What is of utmost importance is the CASE NO 24.
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as
the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence
of the accused.31 In other words, to be admissible in evidence, the G.R. No. 205764. February 3, 2016.*
prosecution must be able to present through records or testimony, the
whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time these were seized from PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LEE QUIJANO ENAD,
the accused by the arresting officers; turned over to the investigating accused-appellant.
officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of their
composition; and up to the time these are offered in evidence. For as long
 Same; Same; Chain of Custody Rule; Since the corpus delicti in should be done, the chain of custody rule requires that the marking should
dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drugs itself, proof beyond be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2)
reasonable doubt that the seized item is the very same object tested to be immediately upon confiscation. Marking upon immediate confiscation
positive for dangerous drugs and presented in court as evidence is essential contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the
in every criminal prosecution under Republic Act (RA) No. 9165.—Since apprehending team. In this case, the prosecution evidence failed to
the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous convincingly show who between P/Insp. Bañares, as poseur-buyer, and
drugs itself, proof beyond reasonable doubt that the seized item is the very P/Insp. Demauro, as backup and arresting officer, marked the bag of
same object tested to be positive for dangerous drugs and presented in marijuana seized from appellant with the initials “LQE” dated “08-14-2005”
court as evidence is essential in every criminal prosecution under R.A. at the PDEA Office.
9165. Because the existence of the dangerous drug is crucial to a judgment Same; Same; Same; Noncompliance by the apprehending team with
of conviction, it is indispensable that the identity of the prohibited drug be Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 is not fatal as long as (1) there is
established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make justifiable ground therefor and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the
a finding of guilt to ensure that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
of the evidence are removed. To this end, the prosecution must establish officer/team.—Noncompliance by the apprehending team with Section 21
the unbroken chain of custody of the seized item. of R.A. 9165 is not fatal as long as (1) there is justifiable ground therefor
Same; Same; Same; Buy-Bust Operations; Links that Must be and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items
Established in the Chain of Custody in a Buy-bust Situation.—The links that are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. In this case,
must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are as although a physical inventory of the bag of marijuana seized from
follows: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug appellant was made in the presence of a representative from the media
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover and an elective public official at the PDEA Office, the prosecution offered
of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the no justification why a DOJ representative was not present and why the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for same item was not photographed. Significantly, the integrity and
laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal evidentiary value of the drugs seized from appellant was not preserved by
drug from the forensic chemist to the court. Here, the prosecution failed to the apprehending team because the prosecution failed (a) to identify who
establish beyond reasonable doubt the first three links in the chain of actually placed the marking “LQE” thereon, (b) to show that it was marked
custody. in the presence of the appellant, and (c) to prove the chain of custody of
Same; Same; Same; Same; Marking; Words and Phrases; As the first the said item from the crime scene until it reached the crime laboratory.
step in the chain of custody, “marking” means the placing by the
apprehending officer or the police poseur-buyer of his/her initials and FACTS:
signature on the dangerous drug seized.—As the first step in the chain of According to the prosecution, in the first week of August 2005, Police
custody, “marking” means the placing by the apprehending officer or the Superintendent (P/Supt.) Amado Marquez ordered Police Chief Inspector
police poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the dangerous drug (PCI) Carmelo Dayon to verify the report of an informant anent the
seized. It is meant to ensure that the objects seized are the same items rampant sale of illegal drugs by appellant in Balamban, Cebu. PCI Dayon
that enter the chain and are eventually offered in evidence, as well as to then instructed P/Insps. Demauro and Bañares to conduct a surveillance
protect innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and the operation against appellant, which they conducted for a week in
apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of coordination with the Balamban Police Station.
evidence. While Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and its implementing rule do not On August 14, 2005, upon being directed by PCI Dayon and armed with
expressly specify a time frame for marking or the place where said marking a pre-operation report, P/Insps. Demauro and Bañares conducted a buy--
bust operation against appellant in Barangay Bayong, at the junction road them as he left them at home. Upon being asked where he was residing,
going to Barangay Magsaysay in Balamban, Cebu. P/Insp. Bañares acted as appellant replied that he was a resident of San Fernando. Thereafter, the
the poseur-buyer, while P/Insp. Demauro acted as the backup and two men, who turned out to be police officers, frisked him and the driver
arresting officer. During the operation, they were also assisted by SPO2 but found nothing. When the two men requested appellant to come with
Jude Dennis Aguanta of the Balamban Police Station, three (3) barangay them to the police station to verify his residence, he hesitated and
tanods and an informant. Upon reaching Barangay Bayong, they first protested, but was nonetheless forced to go.
staked out along the highway in front of a store. Thereafter, they saw Once at the police station, appellant saw one of the two men bring a
appellant. black bag and was told to admit that he owned it. Appellant vehemently
The informant then told P/Insp. Demauro through radio that appellant refused to admit its ownership as the bag contained marijuana.
was on his way to their position onboard a motorcycle or habal-habal. When appellant still refused to admit ownership of the bag, one of the
P/Insp. Bañares then approached and held the motorcycle being police officers boxed him once on the right side of his body. Appellant was
boarded by appellant. P/Insp. Bañares introduced himself as a band then forced to sign the booking sheet and arrest report.
member and told the habal-habal driver that he needs illegal drugs for
their performance. Upon hearing the conversation of P/Insp. Bañares and ISSUE:
the driver, appellant butted in and asked how much is needed. Appellant
said that the marijuana costs P1,500.00 per kilo and asked P/Insp. Bañares Whether (a) the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are bereft of
if he had the money. P/Insp. Bañares pulled out from his right pocket the anything to show who had custody of the allegedly seized marijuana from
boodle money which was sandwiched between two (2) One Hundred Peso the scene of the incident to the police station until it reached the Crime
(P100) bills and gave it to appellant. In turn, appellant opened the bag with Laboratory for examination, and (b) there is nothing to show who made
suspected dried marijuana. After seeing the contents, P/Insp. Bañares took the markings on the said items at the police station
the bag and made the prearranged signal that the transaction was already
consummated. P/Insp. Bañares immediately introduced himself as a police HELD:
officer and recovered the money from appellant. P/Insp. Demauro also
rushed in and arrested the appellant who offered no resistance. The appeal is impressed with merit.
P/Insps. Bañares and Demauro brought the appellant to a nearby store For a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of
and presented him before barangay tanods, then proceeded to the office. dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, all the following
P/Insp. Demauro prepared the booking sheet, the arrest report, as well as elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
the requests for laboratory examination of the suspected dried marijuana object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
marked as “LQE” and dated 08-14-2005, and for medical examination of sold and the payment therefor.9 The delivery of the illicit drug to the
appellant. poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller
According to the defense, on August 14, 2005 at around 11 o’clock in successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material,
the morning, appellant was riding a motorcycle (habal-habal), together therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with
with its driver, to visit his cousin, LitoLapinid. the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, as evidence.10
their motorcycle was flagged down by two (2) unknown men. Once the Moreover, since the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes
motorcycle stopped, the driver was asked if he had a driver’s license and the dangerous drugs itself,11 proof beyond reasonable doubt that the
where they were going. The driver showed his license and replied that seized item is the very same object tested to be positive for dangerous
appellant was going to Balamban. Appellant was also asked for his drugs and presented in court as evidence is essential in every criminal
identification card and community tax certificate, but he failed to show prosecution under R.A. 9165. Because the existence of the dangerous drug
is crucial to a judgment of conviction, it is indispensable that the identity of markings on the drugs seized from appellant and whether it was marked in
the prohibited drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude the latter’s presence.
as that requisite to make a finding of guilt to ensure that unnecessary P/Insp. Demauro’s direct examination also failed to reveal who marked
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.12 To this end, the seized drugs and whether it was marked in the presence of appellant.
the prosecution must establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized Similarly, P/Insp. Bañares’ direct examination was unable to establish
item. who marked the seized drugs and whether it was marked in the presence
As the first step in the chain of custody, “marking” means the placing of appellant.
by the apprehending officer or the police poseur-buyer of his/her initials As can be gleaned from the testimonies of the arresting officers,
and signature on the dangerous drug seized. It is meant to ensure that the P/Insps. Bañares and Demauro, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the
objects seized are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually identity of the one who actually marked the drugs seized from appellant
offered in evidence, as well as to protect innocent persons from dubious with the initials “LQE” and the date “08-14-2005,” and whether it was
and concocted searches, and the apprehending officers from harassment marked in the latter’s presence. Hence, the first link in the chain of custody
suits based on planting of evidence.16 While Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and its of the drugs seized from appellant was broken.
implementing rule do not expressly specify a time frame for marking or the Anent the second link in the chain of custody, there is no showing who
place where said marking should be done, the chain of custody rule between P/Insps. Bañares and Demauro turned over to the investigating
requires that the marking should be done (1) in the presence of the officer the drugs seized from appellant. As can be gathered from their
apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation. 17 Marking above quoted testimonies and sworn statements, they also failed to
upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest disclose the identities of the desk officer and the investigator to whom
police station or office of the apprehending team.18In this case, the custody of the same drugs was turned over.
prosecution evidence failed to convincingly show who between P/Insp. With respect to the third link in the chain of custody, there is likewise
Bañares, as poseur-buyer, and P/Insp. Demauro, as backup and arresting no indication as to the identity of the investigating officer who then turned
officer, marked the bag of marijuana seized from appellant with the initials over the drugs to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. While
“LQE” dated “08-14-2005” at the PDEA Office. the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report25 and the Request for Laboratory
evidence, as well as to protect innocent persons from dubious and Examination26 indicate that a certain PO2 Inocentes L. Amistad was the one
concocted searches, and the apprehending officers from harassment suits who booked appellant’s arrest and delivered the said request to the
based on planting of evidence.16 While Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and its forensic chemist, there is no evidence on record that he was the
implementing rule do not expressly specify a time frame for marking or the investigating officer assigned to the case of appellant. No evidence was
place where said marking should be done, the chain of custody rule also proffered on how the bag of marijuana ended up in the possession of
requires that the marking should be done (1) in the presence of the PO2 Amistad. Nowhere in the testimonies and affidavits of P/Insps.
apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation.17 Marking Bañares and Demauro was it stated who between them turned over
upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest custody of the bag of marijuana to him. Thus, the prosecution’s failure to
police station or office of the apprehending team. 18In this case, the explain how PO2 Amistad got hold of the marijuana casts doubt on the
prosecution evidence failed to convincingly show who between P/Insp. identity of the corpus delicti.
Bañares, as poseur-buyer, and P/Insp. Demauro, as backup and arresting Moreover, the failure of the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of
officer, marked the bag of marijuana seized from appellant with the initials custody was compounded by the police officers’ noncompliance with the
“LQE” dated “08-14-2005” at the PDEA Office. procedure for the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs as set
There is likewise no indication in the Affidavit of the Poseur-Buyer forth in Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. 9165.
dated August 16, 2005 of P/Insp. Bañares as to who placed the said
 A reading of the proviso embodied in the above provision clearly states
that noncompliance by the apprehending team with Section 21 of R.A.
9165 is not fatal as long as (1) there is justifiable ground therefor and (2)
the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. 28 In this case,
although a physical inventory of the bag of marijuana seized from
appellant was made in the presence of a representative from the media
and an elective public official at the PDEA Office, the prosecution offered
no justification why a DOJ representative was not present and why the
same item was not photographed. Significantly, the integrity and
evidentiary value of the drugs seized from appellant was not preserved by
the apprehending team because the prosecution failed (a) to identify who
actually placed the marking “LQE” thereon, (b) to show that it was marked
in the presence of the appellant, and (c) to prove the chain of custody of
the said item from the crime scene until it reached the crime laboratory.
All told, the Court finds that the prosecution failed (a) to establish an
unbroken chain of custody of the bag of marijuana seized from appellant,
(b) to prove that the specimen found to be positive for marijuana upon
laboratory examination, was the same dangerous drugs seized from him,
and (c) to proffer any justifiable ground for the noncompliance with
Section 21 of R.A. 9165. These flaws cast serious doubt on whether the
specimen found to be positive of marijuana upon laboratory examination
was the same drugs seized from appellant and offered in evidence before
the trial court. With the failure of the prosecution to prove with moral
certainty the identity and the unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous
drugs seized from him, appellant deserves exoneration from the crime
charged.