8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

 
 

G.R. No. 202206. March 5, 2018.*

 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
TENG MONER y ADAM, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Sale of

Dangerous Drugs; Elements of.—For a successful prosecution of
an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following
essential elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale
took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was
presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were
identified. A perusal of the records of this case would reveal that
the aforementioned elements were established by the prosecution.
The illegal drugs and the marked money were presented and
identified in court. More importantly,

_______________

*  FIRST DIVISION.

 
 
243

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 243

People vs. Moner

Police Officer (PO) 2 Joachim Panopio (PO2 Panopio), who

acted as poseur-buyer, positively identified Moner as the seller of
the shabu to him for a consideration of P8,000.00.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Credibility of Witnesses;
It has been held, time and again, that minor inconsistencies and
contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not destroy the
witnesses’ credibility but even enhance their truthfulness as they
erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.—We rule that
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
that were pointed out by Moner consist merely of minor variances
that do not deviate from the main narrative which is the fact that
Moner sold illegal drugs to a poseur-buyer. It has been held, time

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

and again, that minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the

declarations of witnesses do not destroy the witnesses’ credibility
but even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of
a rehearsed testimony. It bears stressing, too, that the
determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses,
when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and
credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect.
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Chain of Custody Rule;
Noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic
Act (RA) No. 9165 will not necessarily render the illegal drugs
seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible.—We
have consistently ruled that noncompliance with the
requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 will not
necessarily render the illegal drugs seized or confiscated in a buy-
bust operation inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of
Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs have
been preserved, i.e., the illegal drugs being offered in court as
evidence is, without a specter of doubt, the very same item
recovered in the buy-bust operation.
Same; Same; Same; Noncompliance with the chain of custody
rule is excusable as long as there exist justifiable grounds which
prevented those tasked to follow the same from strictly conforming
to the said directive.—Noncompliance with the chain of custody
rule is excusable as long as there exist justifiable grounds which
prevented those tasked to follow the same from strictly
conforming to the said directive. The preceding discussion clearly
show that the apprehend-

 
 
244

244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

ing officers in this case did not totally  disregard prescribed

procedure but, instead, demonstrated substantial compliance with what
was required. It was likewise explained that the divergence in procedure
was not arbitrary or whimsical but because the buy-bust team decided
that they could not linger at the crime scene as it would unduly expose
them to security risks since they were outside their area of responsibility.
Notably, in the recent case of Palo v. People, 783 SCRA 557 (2016), we
affirmed a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs despite the
fact that the seized illegal substance was only marked at the police
station and that there was no physical inventory or photograph of the
same: The fact that the apprehending officer marked the plastic sachet at
the police station, and not at the place of seizure, did not compromise the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

integrity of the seized item. Jurisprudence has declared that “marking

upon immediate confiscation” contemplates even marking done at the
nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. Neither does
the absence of a physical inventory nor the lack of photograph of the
confiscated item renders the same inadmissible. What is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items as these would be used in determining the guilt or
innocence of the accused.

Same; Denials; Frame-Up; The defense of denial or frame-up,

like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor
for it can just easily be concocted and is a common and standard
defense ploy in most prosecution for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act.—Anent Moner’s allegation that the buy-bust team
asked money from him and his former co-accused in exchange for
their liberty, it must be emphasized that the said allegation only
came to light when defense counsel asked appellant what
happened when he and his former co-accused were brought to the
Las Piñas Police Station. Curiously, however, defense counsel did
not confront any of the prosecution witnesses regarding the said
accusation. More importantly, based on the record, no criminal or
administrative case relating thereto was ever filed by Moner or
any of his former co-accused against their alleged extortionists.
Nevertheless, on this particular issue, we would like to reiterate
our ruling that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has
been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just
easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in
most prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

 
 
245

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 245

People vs. Moner

 Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; In cases

involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given
to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner,
unless there is evidence to the contrary.—It bears repeating that in
cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is
given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner,
unless there is evidence to the contrary. Admittedly, the buy-bust
team did not follow certain aspects of procedure to the letter but
this was excusable under the saving clause of the chain of custody
rule and prevailing jurisprudence. As a consequence thereof, their
arrest of Moner in the performance of their duty cannot be
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

described as having been done so irregularly as to convince this

Court to invalidate the credibility and belief bestowed by the trial
court on the prosecution evidence. Accordingly, Moner must
provide clear and convincing evidence to overturn the aforesaid
presumption that the police officers regularly performed their
duties but the records show that he has failed to do so. Absent any
proof of mishandling, tampering or switching of evidence
presented against him by the arresting officers and other
authorities involved in the chain of custody, the presumption
remains.
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Chain of Custody Rule;
Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 was passed by the
legislative department and its implementing rules were
promulgated by Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), in
consultation with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other
agencies under and within the executive department.—The power
to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure
in all courts is a traditional power of this Court. This includes the
power to promulgate the rules of evidence. On the other hand, the
Rules of Evidence are provided in the Rules of Court issued by the
Supreme Court. However, the chain of custody rule is not found in
the Rules of Court. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 was
passed by the legislative department and its implementing rules
were promulgated by PDEA, in consultation with the Department
of Justice (DOJ) and other agencies under and within the
executive department.
Political Law; Separation of Powers; Under the doctrine of
separation of powers, it is important to distinguish if a matter is a 

 
 
246

246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

proper subject of the rules of evidence, which as shown above

are promulgated by the Supreme Court (SC), or it is a subject of
substantive law, and should be passed by an act of Congress.—
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, it is important to
distinguish if a matter is a proper subject of the rules of evidence,
which as shown above are promulgated by the Court, or it is a
subject of substantive law, and should be passed by an act of
Congress.
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Chain of Custody Rule;
The chain of custody rule is a matter of evidence and a rule of
procedure.—To emphasize, the distinction in criminal law is this:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes and
prescribes the punishment for committing them, as distinguished
from the procedural law which provides or regulates the steps by
which one who commits a crime is to be punished. Based on the
above, it may be gleaned that the chain of custody rule is a matter
of evidence and a rule of procedure. It is therefore the Court who
has the last say regarding the appreciation of evidence.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Credibility of Witnesses;
The Supreme Court (SC) has consistently espoused the time-
honored doctrine that where the issue is one of credibility of
witnesses, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed
unless the consideration of certain facts of substance and value,
which have been plainly overlooked, might affect the result of the
case.—This Court has consistently espoused the time-honored
doctrine that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the
findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless the
consideration of certain facts of substance and value, which have
been plainly overlooked, might affect the result of the case. We do
not believe that the explainable deviations to the chain of custody
rule demonstrated by the police officers involved in this case are
reason enough to overturn the findings of the trial court judge,
who personally observed and weighed the testimony of the
witnesses during trial and examined the evidence submitted by
both parties.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
    The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

 
 
247

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 247

People vs. Moner

   Palad, Lauron & Palad for accused-appellant.

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,** J.:

 
This is an appeal of the Decision1 dated July 27, 2011 of
the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04399,
entitled People of the Philippines v. Teng Moner y Adam,
which affirmed the Joint Decision2 dated August 4, 2009 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 95
in Criminal Case Nos. Q-05-133982 and Q-05-133983.
Anent Criminal Case No. Q-05-133982, the trial court
found appellant Teng Moner y Adam (Moner) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II (sale of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

dangerous drugs) of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise

known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002. In the same judgment, Moner and his co-accused
were acquitted of the charge of violating Section 11, Article
II (possession of dangerous drugs) of the same statute
which was the subject of Criminal Case No. Q-05-133983.
The crime of which Moner was convicted is described in
the Information dated April 25, 2005, as follows:

That on or about the 23rd day of April, 2005, in Quezon

City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by
law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any
dangerous drug, did then and there, willfully and
unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or
act as broker in the said transaction, three point

_______________

**   Designated Acting Chairperson  per Special Order No. 2540 dated
February 28, 2018.
1  Rollo, pp. 2-20; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla,
with  Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and  Agnes Reyes-Carpio,
concurring.
2    CA  Rollo, pp. 73-92; penned by  Presiding Judge Henri Jean-Paul B.
Inting.

 
 
248

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

ninety-one (3.91) grams of methylamphetamine

hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.3

     Subsequently, on May 16, 2005, Moner pleaded “NOT

GUILTY” to the aforementioned charge of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs upon his arraignment.4
In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals presented
the factual milieu of this case in this manner:

To establish the guilt of accused-appellant, the

prosecution presented three (3) witnesses namely: PO2
Joachim Panopio, PO3 Junnifer Tuldanes and PO3 Edwin
Lirio.
The prosecution’s evidence tends to establish the
following facts:
On April 23, 2005, the police operatives of Las Piñas
Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

Force (SAIDSOTF) had arrested a certain Joel Taudil for

possession of illegal drugs. Upon investigation, they
gathered from Taudil that the source of the illegal drugs
was Teng Moner (herein accused-appellant) who hails from
Tandang Sora, Quezon City.
As per this information, Police Chief Inspector Jonathan
Cabal formed a team that would conduct a buy-bust
operation for the apprehension of accused-appellant. The
team was composed of himself, SPO4 Arnold Alabastro,
SPO1 Warlie Hermo, PO3 Junnifer Tuldanes, PO3 Edwin
Lirio, PO2 Rodel Ordinaryo, PO1 Erwin Sabbun and PO2
Joachim Panopio. The marked and boodle money were given
to PO2 Panopio who acted as the poseur-buyer.
Before proceeding with the buy-bust operation, the team
prepared the pre-operation report addressed to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the authority
to operate outside their jurisdiction and the coor-

_______________

3  Records, p. 2.
4  Id., at pp. 35-36.

 
 
249

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 249

People vs. Moner

dination paper. Thereafter, they proceeded to the Central

Police District Office (CPDO), Camp Karingal, Quezon City
for proper coordination. Thereafter, the team together with
Taudil and a CPD-DIID personnel proceeded [to] No. 26
Varsity Lane, Barangay Culiat, Tandang Sora, Quezon
City. Upon reaching the place they made a surveillance and
assumed their respective positions.
At the target area, PO2 Panopio and Taudil went to
accused-appellant’s house. While outside the gate, Taudil
summoned accused-appellant and the latter came out after
a few minutes. The two men talked with each other in the
Muslim dialect. Taudil introduced PO2 Panopio as his
friend to accused-appellant and told him that PO2 Panopio
was interested to buy shabu. PO2 Panopio asked for the
price of five (5) grams of shabu. Accused-appellant replied
that the same would cost him P8,000.00 and asked him if he
has the money. When PO2 Panopio confirmed that he has
the money with him, accused-appellant asked them to wait
and he went inside the house. When he returned after a few
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

minutes, he handed a plastic sachet containing a substance

suspected as shabu to PO2 Panopio who in turn gave him
the marked and boodle money. Accused-appellant was about
to count the money when PO2 Panopio gave the
prearranged signal to his team and introduced himself as
[a] police officer.
Accused-appellant resisted arrest and ran inside the
house but PO2 Panopio was able to catch up with him. The
other members of the team proceeded inside the house and
they saw the other accused gather[ed] around a table
repacking shabu. PO3 Lirio confiscated the items from them
and placed the same inside a plastic bag.
After accused-appellant and his co-accused were
arrested, the team proceeded to the Las Piñas City Police
Station. The items confiscated from them were turned over
by PO2 Panopio to PO3 Dalagdagan who marked them in
the presence of the police operatives, accused-appellant and
his co-accused. PO3 Dalagdagan prepared the
corresponding inventory of the confiscated items. The
specimens were then brought to the police crime labora-

 
 
250

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

tory for testing. The specimens yielded positive to the test

for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Consequently, a case for Violation of Section 5, Article II
of R.A. 9165 was filed against accused-appellant and
another for Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165
against him and his co-accused.
In refutation of the prosecution’s version, the defense
presented four (4) witnesses, to wit: Judie Durado, Fatima
Macabangen, accused-appellant and Richard Pascual.
It is the contention of the defense that on April 23, 2005,
accused-appellant and his co-accused in Criminal Case No.
Q-05-133983 were at the house located along No. 26 Varsity
Lane, Philam, Tandang Sora, Quezon City to prepare for
the wedding of Fatima Macabangen and Abubakar Usman
to be held the following day. While they were inside the
house, several armed persons wearing civilian clothes
entered and announced that they were police officers. They
searched the whole house and gathered all of them in the
living room.
The police officer who was positioned behind accused-
appellant and Abubakar dropped a plastic sachet. The
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

former asked accused-appellant and Abubakar who owns

the plastic sachet. When accused-appellant denied its
ownership, the police officer slapped him and accused him
of being a liar. Thereafter, they were all frisked and
handcuffed and were brought outside the house. Their
personal effects and belongings were confiscated by the
police officers. Then they boarded a jeepney and were
brought to [the] Las Piñas Police Station.
Upon their arrival, they were investigated. A police
officer asked them to call up anybody who can help them
because they only needed money for their release. Judie
Dorado called up [his] mother. They saw the other items
allegedly confiscated from them only at the police station.
At around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, they were brought to
Camp Crame, Quezon City. From there, they went to
Makati for drug testing and were returned to Las Piñas
Police Station.

 
 
251

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 251

People vs. Moner

Subsequently, cases for Violation of  R.A. No. 9165 were

filed against them.5

      After receiving the evidence for both sides, the trial

court convicted Moner on the charge of selling shabu while,
at the same time, acquitting him and his co-accused of the
charge of possession of illegal drugs. The dispositive
portion of the August 4, 2009 Joint Decision of the trial
court reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court renders its Joint

Decision as follows:
 
1. In Criminal Case No. Q-05-133982:
 
The Court finds accused TENG MONER y ADAM
“GUILTY” beyond reasonable doubt for violation of
Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 or illegal selling of
three point ninety-one (3.91) grams of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug
and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).
2. In Criminal Case No. Q-05-133983:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

 
The Court finds accused TENG MONER y ADAM,
JUDIE DURADO y MACABANGEN, FATIMA
MACABANGEN y NUÑEZ, ABUBAKAR USMAN y
MASTORA, GUIAMIL ABU y JUANITEZ, NORODIN
USMAN y MASTORA, RICHARD PASCUAL y
TANGALIN and AMINA USMAN-MONER “NOT
GUILTY” for violation of Section 11, Art. II of R.A.
9165 considering that the prosecution failed to prove
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The pieces of evidence subject matter of Crim. Case
No. Q-05-133983 are hereby ordered to be safely
delivered to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
for proper disposition.6

_______________

5  Rollo, pp. 6-9.

6  CA Rollo, p. 92.

 
 
252

252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

 
As can be expected, Moner elevated his case to the Court
of Appeals which, unfortunately for him, ruled to affirm the
findings of the trial court and dispositively held:

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated August 4,

2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 95, Quezon City in
Criminal Case No. Q-05-133982 finding accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt is hereby AFFIRMED.7

      Hence, Moner interposes this appeal wherein he

reiterates the same errors on the part of the trial court
contained in his Brief filed with the Court of Appeals, to
wit:

A. THE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN

IT ISSUED ITS DECISION DATED AUGUST 4, 2009
FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT MONER GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATING
SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165, WHEN THE
TESTIMONIES OF THE THREE (3) PROSECUTION
WITNESSES (PO2 JOACHIM PANOPIO, PO3 JUNNIFER
TULDANES, AND PO3 EDWIN LIRIO) ARE HIGHLY

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

INCREDIBLE AND UNBELIEVABLE TO PROVE THE

ALLEGED BUY-BUST.
B. THE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED IN ITS
DECISION WHEN IT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PERJURED
TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES POLICE
OFFICERS WHICH ARE FULL OF INCONSISTENCIES.
C. THE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED IN ISSUING
THE ASSAILED DECISION WHEN IT FAILED TO GIVE
CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE DEFENSE
WITNESSES WHO CLEARLY TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS
REALLY NO BUY-BUST AND THAT APPELLANT MONER WAS
NOT SELLING ANY PROHIBITED DRUGS.

_______________

7  Rollo, p. 20.

 
 
253

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 253

People vs. Moner

D. THE COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT ISSUED THE

ASSAILED DECISION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
PROSECUTION WITNESSES FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE
MANDATORY PROVISION OF SEC. 19 OF R.A. NO. 9165, ON
THE MATTER OF PHYSICAL INVENTORY, AND PICTURE
TAKING OF THE EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED FROM THE
ACCUSED, AS WELL AS THE PROVISION OF SECTION 86
THEREOF.8

    In sum, Moner maintains that the prosecution failed

to discharge its burden of proof to sustain his conviction for
the charge of sale of dangerous drugs. He highlights the
fact that the prosecution failed to present in court the
informant who pointed to him as a supplier of shabu. He
also stresses that the buy-bust operation was conducted
without proper coordination with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Likewise, he derides the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as inconsistent,
incredible and unworthy of belief. Most importantly, he
underscores the failure of the arresting officers to comply
with the statutorily mandated procedure for the handling
and custody of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from
him.
The appeal is without merit.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

For a successful prosecution of an offense of illegal sale

of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements must
be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2)
that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as
evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.9
A perusal of the records of this case would reveal that
the aforementioned elements were established by the
prosecution. The illegal drugs and the marked money were
presented and identified in court. More importantly, Police
Officer (PO) 2

_______________

8  CA Rollo, p. 110.
9    Ampatuan v. People, 667 Phil.  747, 755; 652 SCRA 615, 624-625
(2011).

 
 

254

254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

 
Joachim Panopio (PO2 Panopio), who acted as poseur-
buyer, positively identified Moner as the seller of the shabu
to him for a consideration of P8,000.00.
With regard to Moner’s contention that the prosecution’s
failure to present the informant in court diminishes the
case against him, we reiterate our pronouncement on this
matter in the recent case of People v. Lafaran:10

It has oft been held that the presentation of an informant

as witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of
a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. As a rule, the
informant is not presented in court for security reasons, in
view of the need to protect the informant from the
retaliation of the culprit arrested through his efforts.
Thereby, the confidentiality of the informant’s identity is
protected in deference to his invaluable services to law
enforcement. Only when the testimony of the informant is
considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction
of the culprit should the need to protect his security be
disregarded. In the present case, as the buy-bust operation
was duly witnessed by SPO2 Aro and PO3 Pera, their
testimonies can take the place of that of the poseur-buyer.

Thus, we concur with the appellate court’s finding that

there is no need to present the informant because PO2
Panopio, who acted as the poseur-buyer, had testified in
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

court. Furthermore, the other members of the buy-bust

team, namely PO3 Junnifer Tuldanes (PO3 Tuldanes) and
PO3 Edwin Lirio (PO3 Lirio), gave clear and credible
testimonies with regard to the criminal transaction that
was consummated by appellant and PO2 Panopio.
In addition, we rule that inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that were pointed
out by Moner consist merely of minor variances that do not
deviate from the main narrative which is the fact that
Moner sold illegal drugs

_______________

10  771 Phil. 311, 326-327; 772

SCRA 558, 573-574 (2015).

 
 
255

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 255

People vs. Moner

 
to a poseur-buyer. It has been held, time and again, that
minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the
declarations of witnesses do not destroy the witnesses’
credibility but even enhance their truthfulness as they
erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.11 It bears
stressing, too, that the determination by the trial court of
the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate
court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great
respect, if not conclusive effect.12
Lastly, we can give no credence to Moner’s contention
that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of
custody in consonance with the requirements of law.
To ensure that the drug specimen presented in court as
evidence against the accused is the same material seized
from him or that, at the very least, a dangerous drug was
actually taken from his possession, we have adopted the
chain of custody rule. The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB)
has expressly defined chain of custody involving dangerous
drugs and other substances in the following terms in
Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002:

b. “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded

authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

record of movements and custody of seized item shall

include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time
when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
disposition[.]

_______________

11    People v. Mamalumpon, 767  Phil. 845, 855; 768 SCRA 342, 353-
354 (2015).
12  People v. Castro, 711 Phil. 662, 673; 699 SCRA 252, 264-265 (2013).

 
 

256

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

 
In relation to this, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165
pertinently provides the following:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,

Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources
of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment.—The PDEA shall take charge and have custody
of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same
in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]

   Furthermore, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules

and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 relevantly
states:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,

Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources
of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory

Equipment.—The PDEA shall take charge and have custody
of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial
custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
per-

 
 
257

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 257

People vs. Moner

son/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,

or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall
be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever
is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further, That noncompliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items[.] (Emphasis
supplied)

    We have consistently ruled that noncompliance with

the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165
will not necessarily render the illegal drugs seized or
confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible. Strict
compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if
there is a clear showing that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized illegal drugs have been preserved, i.e.,
the illegal drugs being offered in court as evidence is,
without a specter of doubt, the very same item recovered in
the buy-bust operation.13

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

With regard to the foregoing, Moner asserts that he

should be acquitted of the criminal charges levelled against
him specifically because of the following serious lapses in
procedure committed by the apprehending officers: (a) the
physical inventory was not conducted at the place where
the seizure was made; (b) the seized item was not
photographed at the place of seizure; and (c) there was no
physical inventory and photograph of the seized item in the
presence of the accused,

_______________

13  People v. Cunanan, 756 Phil. 40, 50; 753 SCRA 275, 285-286 (2015).

 
 

258

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

 
or his representative or counsel, with an elected public
official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The aforementioned concerns can be squarely addressed
by a careful and assiduous review of the records of this case
accompanied by a liberal application and understanding of
relevant jurisprudence in support thereof. Both object and
testimonial evidence demonstrate that the apprehending
officers were able to mark the dangerous drugs seized and
to prepare a physical inventory of the same at the Las
Piñas Police Station which was the place where Moner and
his co-accused were brought for processing. The following
excerpts lifted from the transcript of the testimony of PO2
Panopio during trial confirm this fact:
 
Q    Now, Mr. Witness, after your team recovered [the]
evidence on top of the table inside the house, arrested
those persons whom you identified a while ago and
also arrested Teng Moner  recovered from him
the buy-bust money, what happened next?
A    We brought them to the police headquarters.
Q  In what headquarters did you bring the  persons
arrested?
A    We brought them to Special Action . . . SAID-SOTF 
Las Piñas Police Station.
     x x x x

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

Q   Now, I would like to inform you that under Section 

21 of the Republic Act 9165, the arresting officer
immediately after the arrest of the accused or the
person buy-bust for possession must prepare the
inventory of seized evidence.
A     Yes, sir.
Q    What do you mean by “yes?”
A    We did prepare an inventory, sir.
 
 

259

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 259

People vs. Moner

 
Q    So, you are aware of that provision?
A    I just forgot the Section 21, sir.
COURT: (to the witness)
Q  You do not know that doing an inventory is a 
requirement under Section 21?
A     Yes, your Honor.
PROS: (to the witness)
Q    Now, you said that you are aware of Section 21 an
inventory must be made. Do you know whether your
team complied  with that provision of the law        upon
reaching the station?
A    Yes, sir,
Q    What do you mean by “yes?”
A    We made an Inventory Report, sir.
Q    Where is now that Inventory Report?
A     It’s with the documents I submitted earlier in court, sir.
     x x x x
PROS: (to the Court)
This piece of document handed by the witness your Honor,
the Inventory of Property Seized be marked as Exhibit
“OOO.”
COURT: (to the witness)
Q    That is the original, Mr. Witness?
A    Yes, your Honor.
     x x x x
PROS.: (to the Court)
Q    The signature of PO3 Rufino G. Dalagdagan under
the heading “Received By”: be bracketed and be     
marked as Exhibit “OOO-1;” the list of  the articles
appearing [in] the body of Exhibit “OOO” be
bracketed and be marked as Exhibit “OOO-2.”
This Receipt of Property Turned-Over,               
your Honor,
 
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

which states: “I, PO3 RUFINO G.  DALAGDAGAN OF

SAID-SOTF, LAS PIÑAS CITY POLICESTATION, SPD
hereby acknowledge  received (sic) the
items/articles listed hereunder [from] PO2 JOACHIM
P. PANOPIO” and may we request, your honor that letters
appearing on the top of the name TENG MONER ADAM,
ET AL. (RTS) be marked as Exhibit “OOO-3.”

PROS: (to the witness)

Q    Where were you, Mr. Witness, when  this
Exhibit “OOO” was prepared?
A     I was inside the office, sir.
Q    Who prepared this Exhibit “OOO”?
A    PO3 Rufino Dalagdagan, sir.
Q   These items listed [in] the body of marked as  Exhibit
“OOO,” who made these items?
A     I, myself, sir.
Q    Now, showing to you this Exhibit marked as “OOO-
3” particularly on [the] letters RPS appearing inside
the parenthesis, who placed that entry        (RPS)?
A    Police Officer Dalagdagan, sir.
Q   Where were you at the time when this (RPS)         
marked as Exhibit “OOO-3” was made?
A    I was inside the office, sir.
Q    Where were those persons whom your  team   
arrested when this evidence marked as Exhibit
“OOO” was made?
A    They were also inside the office, sir.
x x x x
Q   You said a while ago that in consideration with the
buy-bust money, you received from the accused, Teng 
Moner, that plastic sachet containing  shabu. Upon
reaching the  station, what happened to the
plastic  sachet, subject matter of the buy-
bust operation?
A     I turned it over, sir.
 
 

261

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 261

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

People vs. Moner

 
Q    To whom?
A    PO3 Dalagdagan, sir.
Q      And before you turned it over to
the  investigator, PO3 Dalagdagan, that  shabu
subject matter of the buy-bust  operation, what
did you do with it?
A     He placed [the] markings on it, sir.
Q    So, you did not do anything on the shabu you         
bought from the accused when it was the investigator
who made the markings on the shabu?
A     Yes, sir.
Q  And what were the markings placed by the 
investigator, PO3 Dalagdagan, when you turned over
the shabu, subject matter of the buy-bust operation?
A    He placed “TMA”. . . that’s all I can recall, sir.
Q   Now, would you be able to identify that plastic 
sachet, subject matter of  the buy-bust
operation?
A     Yes, sir.
Q    Showing to you several pieces of evidence placed 
inside the brown envelope. Kindly look at the same
and pick from these several items that plastic sachet,
subject matter of the buy- bust operation?
A    (Witness picked from the bunch of evidence the     
plastic sachet which already marked as Exhibit “P”
and he read [the] markings “TMAU1- 23APR05”)
Q    Now, you also stated a while ago that you were the
one who personally recovered the buy-bust money
used in the operation from the possession of the 
accused, Teng Moner. If the same would be shown to
you, would you be able  to identity it?
A     Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q    Now, you also stated that the Request  for   
Laboratory Examination was  made by the
investigator, Now, who delivered the plastic sa-
 
 

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

 
      chet subject matter of the buy-bust             
  operation for laboratory examination?
A      We did, sir.14 (Emphases supplied)
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

 
Judging from the cited testimony, it is apparent that the
apprehending officers were able to substantially comply
with the requirements of the law regarding the custody of
confiscated or seized dangerous drugs. When cross-
examined by the defense counsel during trial about the
reason behind the buy-bust team’s noncompliance with
standard procedure, PO3 Tuldanes, one of the
apprehending officers, gave the following response:
 
ATTY. PALAD: (to witness)
Q    Meaning you had no time to make the inventory         
right at the scene of the alleged  buy-bust?
A   Yes, sir, because we were immediately instructed to pull
out from the area.
Q  Was there any threat on your lives that you 
immediately pulled out from the said area?
A    It was not our area — Area of Responsibility — so we
just wanted to make sure, for security and immediately 
left, sir.
Q  So this fear for security, you did not follow this
photographing/inventory?
A    We did not do that anymore, sir, because our security
was at risk.15
 
Verily, the circumstances that the buy-bust team
proceeded first to the Central Police District (CPD) Station,
Camp Karingal in Quezon City and, from there, they were
accompanied by a police officer from the CPD to the target
location, aside from proving that it was a legitimate police
operation, supported the existence of a security risk to the
buy-bust team.

_______________

14  TSN, October 18, 2005, pp. 27- 40.

15  TSN, July 25, 2006, p. 64.

 
 

263

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 263

People vs. Moner

 
These additional precautions taken by the buy-bust team
underscored their unfamiliarity with the location of the operation
and, in fact, corroborated the above quoted testimony that the
buy-bust team believed there was a threat to their security.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

With regard to the accused’s allegation that the buy-bust

team failed to coordinate with the PDEA before proceeding
with the operation that nabbed Moner, both the trial court
and the Court of Appeals declare in unison that the
requisite prior coordination with PDEA did happen.
Likewise, our own review did not provide any reason for us
to disbelieve said established fact.
To reiterate, noncompliance with the chain of custody
rule is excusable as long as there exist justifiable grounds
which prevented those tasked to follow the same from
strictly conforming to the said directive. The preceding
discussion clearly show that the apprehending officers in
this case did not totally disregard prescribed procedure but,
instead, demonstrated substantial compliance with what
was required. It was likewise explained that the divergence
in procedure was not arbitrary or whimsical but because
the buy-bust team decided that they could not linger at the
crime scene as it would unduly expose them to security
risks since they were outside their area of responsibility.
Notably, in the recent case of Palo v. People,16 we
affirmed a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs despite the fact that the seized illegal substance was
only marked at the police station and that there was no
physical inventory or photograph of the same:

The fact that the apprehending officer marked the plastic

sachet at the police station, and not at the place of seizure,
did not compromise the integrity of the seized item.
Jurisprudence has declared that “marking upon

_______________

16  780 Phil. 681; 783 SCRA 557

(2016).

 
 
264

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

immediate confiscation” contemplates even marking done at

the nearest police station or office of the apprehending
team. Neither does the absence of a physical inventory nor
the lack of photograph of the confiscated item renders the
same inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

seized items as these would be used in determining the guilt

or innocence of the accused.17

  With regard to the third breach of procedure

highlighted by Moner, this Court cites People v. Usman18
wherein we declared that the chain of custody is not
established solely by compliance with the prescribed
physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs
in the presence of the enumerated persons by law. In that
case, the police officers who arrested and processed the
accused did not perform the prescribed taking of
photographs tinder the law but, nevertheless, the assailed
conviction was upheld. The Court reasoned thus:

[T]his Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of
custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, “as it is almost
always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.” The most
important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. x x x.19

    In the case at bar, the records indicate that the

integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items had
been preserved despite the procedural infirmities that
accompanied the process. On this score, we quote with
approval the disquisition of the Court of Appeals:

_______________

17  Id., at pp. 694-695; p. 571.

18  753 Phil. 200; 749 SCRA 680 (2015).
19  Id., at p. 214; p. 695.

 
 

265

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 265

People vs. Moner

The record shows that upon the arrest of accused-

appellant, the shabu and marked money were confiscated
from him by PO2 Panopio. Accused-appellant was
immediately brought to the Las Piñas Police Station where
the items confiscated from him were turned over by PO2
Panopio to PO3 Dalagdagan, the investigator-on-case. The
latter received the confiscated items and marked
them in the presence of PO2 Panopio and accused-

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

appellant. An inventory of the confiscated items was

also made.
Thereafter, the request for laboratory examination was
prepared by PO3 Dalagdagan and signed by P/C Insp.
Jonathan A. Cabal. The specimen together with the request
was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame,
Quezon City by PO2 Panopio and the other police officers.
There, it was received by PSI Michael S. Holada, who
delivered the specimen and request for laboratory test to
the forensic chemist PIS Maridel C. Rodis. After
examination, the specimen submitted for testing proved
positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug. The result of the test was reduced to
writing and signed by the forensic chemist. It was duly
noted by P/Sr. Supt. Ricardo Cacholaver. It is worth
stressing that the prosecution and defense had agreed to
dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist and
stipulated among others that she could identify the
documents and the specimens she examined.20 (Emphases
supplied and citations omitted)

    Anent Moner’s allegation that the buy-bust team

asked money from him and his former co-accused in
exchange for their liberty, it must be emphasized that the
said allegation only came to light when defense counsel
asked appellant what happened when he and his former co-
accused were brought to the Las Piñas Police Station.21
Curiously, however, defense counsel did not confront any of
the prosecution witnesses

_______________

20  Rollo, p. 18.
21  TSN, June 4, 2008, p. 7.

 
 
266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

 
regarding the said accusation. More importantly, based on
the record, no criminal or administrative case relating
thereto was ever filed by Moner or any of his former co-
accused against their alleged extortionists. Nevertheless,
on this particular issue, we would like to reiterate our
ruling that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has
been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it
can just easily be concocted and is a common and standard
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

defense ploy in most prosecution for violation of the

Dangerous Drugs Act.22
At this juncture, it bears repeating that in cases
involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence
is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for
they are presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.23
Admittedly, the buy-bust team did not follow certain
aspects of procedure to the letter but this was excusable
under the saving clause of the chain of custody rule and
prevailing jurisprudence. As a consequence thereof, their
arrest of Moner in the performance of their duty cannot be
described as having been done so irregularly as to convince
this Court to invalidate the credibility and belief bestowed
by the trial court on the prosecution evidence. Accordingly,
Moner must provide clear and convincing evidence to
overturn the aforesaid presumption that the police officers
regularly performed their duties but the records show that
he has failed to do so. Absent any proof of mishandling,
tampering or switching of evidence presented against him
by the arresting officers and other authorities involved in
the chain of custody, the presumption remains.
This is not the first time that this Court has been
confronted with the question of whether or not to uphold
the conviction of a person arrested for the illegal sale of
danger-

_______________

22  People v. Ygot, G.R. No. 210715, July 18, 2016, 797 SCRA 87, 93.
23  People v. Minanga, 751 Phil. 240, 249; 746 SCRA 575, 584 (2015).

 
 

267

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 267

People vs. Moner

 
ous drugs who had been positively identified by credible
witnesses as the perpetrator of said crime but the manner
by which the evidence of illegal drugs was handled did not
strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. To reiterate
past pronouncements, while ideally the procedure on the
chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality,
it is not as it is almost always impossible to obtain an
unbroken chain.24 Unfortunately, rigid obedience to
procedure creates a scenario wherein the safeguards that
we set to shield the innocent are likewise exploited by the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

guilty to escape rightful punishment. Realizing the

inconvenient truth that no perfect chain of custody can ever
be achieved, this Court has consistently held that the most
important factor in the chain of custody rule is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items.25
We find it apropos to highlight this Court’s discussion in
Zalameda v. People,26 which was restated in the recent
case of Saraum v. People:27

We would like to add that noncompliance with Section 21

of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and
the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized,
will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under
Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be
inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its
reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must
be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will
accorded it by the court x x x.

_______________

24  Ambre v. People, 692 Phil. 681, 695; 678 SCRA 552, 564 (2012).
25  Saraum v. People, 779 Phil. 122, 133; 781 SCRA 661, 675 (2016).
26    614 Phil. 710, 741-742; 598  SCRA 537, 564-565 (2009), citing  People
v. Del Monte, 575 Phil. 577, 586; 552 SCRA 627, 637 (2008).
27  Saraum v. People, supra.

 
 
268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

  We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in

any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the
confiscated and/or seized drugs due to noncompliance with
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if
there is noncompliance with said section, is not of
admissibility, but of weight — evidentiary merit or
probative value — to be given the evidence. The weight to
be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the
circumstances obtaining in each case.

    Stated differently, if the evidence of illegal drugs was

not handled precisely in the manner prescribed by the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

chain of custody rule, the consequence relates not to

inadmissibility that would automatically destroy the
prosecution’s case but rather to the weight of evidence
presented for each particular case. In the case at bar, the
trial court judge convicted Moner on the strength of the
credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses despite an
imperfect chain of custody concerning the corpus delicti.
It should be noted that Section 21(a) of the IRR of
Republic Act No. 9165 provides that:

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,

Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources
of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment.—The PDEA shall take charge and have custody
of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and
control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized
items and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the persons from whom such items

 
 
269

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 269

People vs. Moner

were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or

counsel, with an elected public official and a representative
of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or
at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures:
Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

seizures and custody over said items. (Emphases

supplied)

  The above quoted provision recognizes that the

credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses and the
admissibility of other evidence are well within the power of
trial court judges to decide. Paragraph (5), Section 5,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution vests upon the
Supreme Court the following power, among others:

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection

and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to
the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance
to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and
shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.

   Jurisprudence explains the above quoted  constitutional

provision in the following manner:
 
 
270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

Until the 1987 Constitution took effect, our two previous

constitutions textualized a power sharing scheme between
the legislature and this Court in the enactment of judicial
rules. Thus, both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions
vested on the Supreme Court the “power to promulgate
rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all
courts, and the admission to the practice of law.” However,
these constitutions also granted to the legislature the
concurrent power to “repeal, alter or supplement” such
rules.
The 1987 Constitution textually altered the power-
sharing scheme under the previous charters by
deleting in Section 5(5) of Article VIII Congress’
subsidiary and corrective power. This glaring and
fundamental omission led the Court to observe in
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice that this Court’s
power to promulgate judicial rules “is no longer
shared by this Court with Congress.”28

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

    The power to promulgate rules concerning pleading,

practice and procedure in all courts is a traditional power
of this Court.29 This includes the power to promulgate the
rules of evidence.
 
On the other hand, the Rules of Evidence are provided
in the Rules of Court issued by the Supreme Court.
However, the chain of custody rule is not found in the Rules
of Court. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 was passed by
the legislative department and its implementing rules were
promulgated by PDEA, in consultation with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and other agencies under and
within the executive department.

_______________

28  Baguio Market Vendors Multi  Purpose Cooperative

(BAMARVEMPCO) v.  Cabato-Cortes,  627 Phil. 543, 548-549; 613  SCRA
733, 739-740 (2010).
29    Re: Petition for Recognition of  the Exemption of the Government
Service Insurance System from Payment of Legal  Fees, 626 Phil. 93, 106;
612 SCRA 193, 202 (2010).

 
 
271

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 271

People vs. Moner

 
In the United States, the chain of custody rule is
followed by the federal courts using the provisions of the
Federal Rules of Evidence. The Federal Court of Appeals
applied this rule in United States v. Ricco30 and held as
follows:

The “chain of custody” rule is found in Fed.R.Evid.

901, which requires that the admission of an exhibit
must be preceded by “evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what its
proponent claims.” x x x.
x x x As we have pointed out, the “‘chain of custody’ is not
an ironclad requirement, and the fact of a ‘missing link’
does not prevent the admission of real evidence, so long as
there is sufficient proof that the evidence is what it purports
to be and has not been altered in any material respect.”
x x x.

According to Cornell University’s online legal

encyclopedia, “[r]ules of evidence are, as the name
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

indicates, the rules by which a court determines what

evidence is admissible at trial. In the U.S., federal courts
follow the Federal Rules of Evidence, while state courts
generally follow their own rules.”31 In the U.S. State of
Alaska, for example, the “chain of custody” rule is found in
Alaska Evidence Rule 901(a).32

_______________

30    52 F.3d 58 - United States Court of Appeals, 4th  Circuit 1995,

citing United States v. Howard-Arias, 679 F.2d 363, 366 (4th Cir.1982).
31   Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/evidence>. Last visited on March 1,
2017.
32  Evidence Rule 901(a) states that if the government offers physical
evidence (or testimony describing physical evidence) in a criminal trial,
and if that physical evidence “is of such a nature as not to be readily
identifiable,” or if the physical evidence is “susceptible to adulteration,
contamination, modification, tampering, or other changes in form
attributable to accident, carelessness, error or fraud,” then the
government must, as foundational matter, “demon-

 
 
272

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

 
Evidence is defined in Section 1 of Rule 12833 as “the
means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of
fact.” Section 2 of the same Rule provides that “[t]he rules
of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials
and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these
rules.” Furthermore, the said Rule provides for the
admissibility of evidence, and states that “[e]vidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules.” The Rules of
Admissibility provide that “[o]bjects as evidence are those
addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is
relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court.”34
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, it is
important to distinguish if a matter is a proper subject of
the rules of evidence, which as shown above are
promulgated by the Court, or it is a subject of substantive
law, and should be passed by an act of Congress. The Court

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

discussed this distinction in the early case of Bustos v.

Lucero:35

Substantive law creates substantive rights and the two

terms in this respect may be said to be synonymous.
Substantive rights is a term which includes those rights
which one enjoys under the legal system prior to the
disturbance of normal relations. (60 C. J., 980) Substantive
law is that part of the law which creates, defines and
regulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties
which give rise to a cause of action; that part of the law
which courts are established to administer; as opposed to
adjective or remedial law, which prescribes the method of
enforcing rights or obtains redress for their invasion. (36
C.J., 27; 52 C.J.S., 1026)

    _______________

    strate [to a] reasonable certainty that the  evidence is x  x  x properly

identified and free of the possible taints” identified in the rule.

33  Rules of Court.
34  Id., Rule 130, Section 1.
35  81 Phil. 640, 649-652 (1948).

 
 

273

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 273

People vs. Moner

As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that

which declares what acts are crimes and prescribes
the punishment for committing them, as
distinguished from the procedural law which
provides or regulates the steps by which one who
commits a crime is to be punished. (22 C.J.S., 49)
Preliminary investigation is eminently and essentially
remedial; it is the first step taken in a criminal prosecution.
As a rule of evidence, Section 11 of Rule 108 is also
procedural. Evidence — which is “the mode and manner of
proving the competent facts and circumstances on which a
party relies to establish the fact in dispute in judicial
proceedings” — is identified with and forms part of the
method by which, in private law, rights are enforced and
redress obtained, and, in criminal law, a law transgressor is
punished. Criminal procedure refers to pleading, evidence
and practice. (State v. Capaci, 154 So., 419; 179 La., 462)

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

The entire rules of evidence have been incorporated into the

Rules of Court. We can not tear down Section 11 of Rule 108
on constitutional grounds without throwing out the whole
code of evidence embodied in these Rules.
In Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S., 167, 70 Law. ed., 216, the
United States Supreme Court said:
“Expressions are to be found in earlier judicial
opinions to the effect that the constitutional
limitation may be transgressed by alterations in the
rules of evidence or procedure. See Calder v. Bull, 3
Dall. 386, 390, 1 L. ed., 648, 650; Cummings v.
Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 326, 18 L. ed., 356, 364; Kring
v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221, 228, 232, 27 L. ed., 507,
508, 510, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep., 443. And there may be
procedural changes which operate to deny to the
accused a defense available under the laws in force at
the time of the commission of his offense, or which
otherwise affect him in such a harsh and arbitrary
manner as to fall within the constitutional
prohibition. Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S., 221, 27 L.
ed., 507, 2 Sup.

 
 

274

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

Ct. Rep., 443; Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S., 343, 42 L.

ed., 1061, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep., 620. But it is now well-
settled that statutory changes in the mode of trial or
the rules of evidence, which do not deprive the
accused of a defense and which operate only in a
limited and unsubstantial manner to his
disadvantage, are not prohibited. A statute which,
after indictment, enlarges the class of persons who
may be witnesses at the trial, by removing the
disqualification of persons convicted of felony, is not
an ex post facto law. Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S., 575, 28 L.
ed., 263, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep., 202, 4 Am. Crim. Rep. 417.
Nor is a statute which changes the rules of evidence
after the indictment so as to render admissible
against the accused evidence previously held
inadmissible, Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U.S., 380, 43
L. ed., 204, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep., 922; or which changes
the place of trial, Gut v. Minnesota, 9 Wall. 35, 19 L.
ed., 573; or which abolishes a court for hearing
criminal appeals, creating a new one in its stead. See
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S., 377, 382, 38 L. ed., 485,

487, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep., 570.”
x x x x

  The distinction between “remedy” and “substantive right”

is incapable of exact definition. The difference is somewhat
a question of degree. (Dexter v. Edmands, 89 F., 467; Beazell
v. Ohio, supra) It is difficult to draw a line in any particular
case beyond which legislative power over remedy and
procedure can pass without touching upon the substantive
rights of parties affected, as it is impossible to fix that
boundary by general condition. (State v. Pavelick, 279 P.,
1102) This being so, it is inevitable that the Supreme Court
in making rules should step on substantive rights, and the
Constitution must be presumed to tolerate if not to expect
such incursion as does not affect the accused in a harsh and
arbitrary manner or deprive him of a defense, but operates

 
 
275

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 275

People vs. Moner

only in a limited and unsubstantial manner to his

disadvantage. For the Court’s power is not merely to
compile, revise or codify the rules of procedure existing at
the time of the Constitution’s approval. This power is “to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts,” which is a power to adopt a
general, complete and comprehensive system of procedure,
adding new and different rules without regard to their
source and discarding old ones.

    To emphasize, the distinction in criminal law is this:

substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes
and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as
distinguished from the procedural law which provides or
regulates the steps by which one who commits a crime is to
be punished.36
Based on the above, it may be gleaned that the chain of
custody rule is a matter of evidence and a rule of
procedure. It is therefore the Court who has the last say
regarding the appreciation of evidence. Relevant portions of
decisions elucidating on the chain of custody rule are
quoted below:

Saraum v. People:37

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

      The chain of custody rule requires the

identification of the persons who handled the
confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring
the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or
drug paraphernalia from the time they were seized
from the accused until the time they are presented in
court. x x x. (Citation omitted)
Malillin v. People:38
        Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited
drugs necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a
prohibited substance be established with moral certainty,
together with the fact that the same is not author-

_______________

36  22 C.J.S. 49.

37  Supra note 25 at p. 132; p. 673.
38  576 Phil. 576, 586-587; 553 SCRA 619, 631-633 (2008).

 
 
276

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

ized by law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very

corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is
vital to a judgment of conviction. Essential therefore in
these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be
established beyond doubt. Be that as it may, the mere fact
of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a
reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain a
finding of guilt. More than just the fact of possession, the
fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place
is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also
be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that
requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function in that it ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence
are removed.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain
of custody rule requires that the admission of an
exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support
a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item
was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such
a way that every person who touched the exhibit would
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

describe how and from whom it was received, where it was

and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession,
the condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the
item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to
have possession of the same. (Citations omitted)

   These are matters well within the powers of courts to

appreciate and rule upon, and so, when the courts find
appropriate, substantial compliance with the chain of
custody rule as long as the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items have been preserved may warrant the
conviction of the accused. This is the rationale, grounded
on the constitutional power of the Court, to pass upon the
credibility and admissi-
 
 
277

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 277

People vs. Moner

 
bility of evidence that underlies the proviso in Section 21(a)
of the IRR of Republic Act No. 9165.
To conclude, this Court has consistently espoused the
time-honored doctrine that where the issue is one of
credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court are
not to be disturbed unless the consideration of certain facts
of substance and value, which have been plainly
overlooked, might affect the result of the case.39 We do not
believe that the explainable deviations to the chain of
custody rule demonstrated by the police officers involved in
this case are reason enough to overturn the findings of the
trial court judge, who personally observed and weighed the
testimony of the witnesses during trial and examined the
evidence submitted by both parties.
In light of the foregoing, we are compelled to dismiss the
present appeal and affirm the conviction of Moner for the
crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present
appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed
Decision dated July 27, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in
C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04399 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Del Castillo and Tijam, JJ., concur.

Sereno, CJ., Chairperson, On Leave.
Perlas-Bernabe, J.,*** Please see Dissenting Opinion.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

_______________

3 9 People v. Mercado, 755 Phil. 863, 874; 753 SCRA 167, 177 (2015).
* ** Designated additional member per Raffle dated February 26, 2018.

 
 
278

278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

 
DISSENTING OPINION
 
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
 
I respectfully submit my dissent to the ponencia which
affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Teng Moner y
Adam for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
No. (RA) 9165,39 otherwise known as the “Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” As will be explained
hereunder, my dissent is centered on the police officers’
unjustified deviation from the chain of custody procedure
as required by RA 9165, as amended.
Under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, prior to its
amendment by RA 10640,40 the physical inventory and
photography of the seized items should be conducted in the
presence of the accused or the person from whom the items
were seized, or his representative or counsel, with an
elected public official, and representatives from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory. The purpose of
this rule is to ensure the establishment of the chain of
custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or
contamination of evidence which could considerably affect a
case.41 Noncompliance with this requirement, however,
would not ipso facto render the seizure and 

_______________

39  Entitled “AN ACT INSTITUTING THE  COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT

OF 2002,  REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE    KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS  AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR  OTHER
PURPOSES,” approved on June 7, 2002.
40    Entitled  “AN ACT TO FURTHER  STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF

THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21  OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ‘COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,’”  approved
on July 15, 2014. The crime  subject of this case was allegedly
committed on April 23, 2005, prior to the enactment of RA 10640.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

41    See  People v. Mendoza, 736  Phil. 749, 764; 727 SCRA 113, 125
(2014).

 
 
279

VOL. 857, MARCH 5, 2018 279

People vs. Moner

 
custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that
the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is
justifiable ground for noncompliance; and (b) the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved.4
Case law states that in determining whether or not
there was indeed a justifiable reason for the deviation in
the aforesaid rule on witnesses, the prosecution must show
that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the
representatives enumerated under the law for “a sheer
statement that representatives were unavailable —
without so much as an explanation on whether serious
attempts were employed to look for other representatives,
given the circumstances — is to be regarded as a flimsy
excuse.”43 Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent
actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses,
are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance.
In this case, while the police officers indeed conducted
an inventory of the seized items as evidenced by the
Receipt of Property Turned Over,44 a review of such
document readily shows that no elected public official,
representative from the DOJ, or representative from the
media signed the same; thus, indicating that such required
witnesses were absent during the conduct of inventory. The
foregoing facts were confirmed by no less than the
members of the buy-bust team who, unfortunately, offered
no explanation for the noncompliance with the rule on
required witnesses.45 To reiterate, the arresting

_______________

4    People v. Goco, G.R. No.  219584, October 17, 2016, 806 SCRA
240, 252. See also  People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51,  60; 617 SCRA 52, 59
(2010).
43  People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1053; 671 SCRA 324, 354 (2012).
44  See Records, p. 100.
45    See  Testimony of Police  Officers (PO) 3 Edwin Lirio,
TSN, September 19, 2006, pp. 65-66; estimony of  PO2 Joachim Panopio,

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

TSN, February 14,  2006, pp. 10-19; Testimony of PO2 Joachim  Panopio,
TSN, October 18, 2005, pp. 29-33.

 
 

280

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Moner

 
officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their
noncompliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court
that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the
mandated procedure, and that under the given
circumstance, their actions were reasonable. Thus, for
failure of the prosecution to provide justifiable grounds or
show that special circumstances exist which would excuse
their transgression, I respectfully submit that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from
the accused-appellant have been compromised. To stress,
the chain of custody procedure enshrined in Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and
cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural
technicality.46
In the recent case of People v. Miranda,47 the Court held
that “as the requirements are clearly set forth in the law,
then the State retains the positive duty to account for any
lapses in the chain of custody of the drugs/items seized
from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense
raises the same in the proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks
the possibility of having a conviction overturned on
grounds that go into the evidence’s integrity and
evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the
first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent
upon further review.”
ACCORDINGLY, in view of the above stated reasons, I
vote to GRANT the appeal, and consequently, ACQUIT
accused-appellant Teng Moner y Adam.

Appeal dismissed.

Notes.—Where the issue is one of credibility of

witnesses, and in this case their testimonies as well, the
findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless the
consideration of certain facts of substance and value, which
have been plainly overlooked, might affect the result of the
case. (People vs. Balino, 729 SCRA 52 [2014])
Minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the
declarations of witnesses even enhance their truthfulness

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/38
8/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 857

as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.

(People vs. Mamalumpon, 768 SCRA 342 [2015])

 
——o0o——

_______________

46    Gamboa v. People, G.R. No.  220333, November 14, 2016, 808 SCRA
624, 637.
47  See G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018, 854 SCRA 42.

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173d5c64e818861c4b5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/38