i\epulll!

c of thr ~01JtllpplllPS
§uprl'lnr [ou rt
Jtla Ill !(1

SECOND DIVISION

PFOPLE OF TilE PHII.IPPINES, G.R. No. 185386

Fl( 1im!fj-, lppel lee.

- \ l'I'SLIS -

BFHNABE ANESLAC y ANDHADE, Present:

\IF~D."\ Ai'JESLAG .1' NECOLAY
(acquitted), l\JAE ELARMOy ( 'ARPIO. Chui1person.
.'iFCOLA \'(acquitted), and 131(10N .
.10( TI.\'N CONCEPCION y LAO,. DEL CAST! I J J ),
, lccused. PEREZ. om/
PL::RLAS-13ERNABL, .U
BFHNABE ANESLACy ANDRADE
and .JOCFL YN CONCEPCION y
L\0. Promulgated:
. L.Yusecl-,·lppellonts .NOV__ 2__j__281L~<Jf~Jw
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - ·- - - -- - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - ~~ ~

f) F C I S I () N

llii:-; is ~111 <1ppeal h·om the i\ugust 27. :200~ Decision

1
of the Court or
\pJ'C~lb IC'Al 111 C' 1\-(i.R. CR-IIC. Nl). (J0172. \\hich atl1rmed the 1\!lay 7.:2005
i kusiUil ul· the Regional Trial Cnurt (RTC) o!.lligan City, Branch 6 in Criminal

( <ls,: '\u. ()(J-1 0091 tinding appelkmls Bernal;e Aneslag and Jocelyn Concepcion
~uiit: l)i \illlating l~epuhlic Act (!L:\.J No. 9165 (or the ··comprehensive
I )~lli~''lllll~ l )rtJgs ~-\ct nf200::'..')~~
. : .1 ~~~~lk,\ ,I' .\\ilhid Ill OllillC p,li!S lli.II!C l·,·,:,,I·,J-,

" ) i,l[ll\\ 11 L!" r l_)L'l' 1: 11 ( ·lHicL'pc1u:1 t.(l\)

i () 3-1 C)ll. ilC:Illlt:d b) 1\ .;.;<H~Idk lti'-IIC<C lccl:c,llcl<l

. I I lnre11 dlld C<lilLliiTCd Ill b; .\'oSUC!diC

'•'' ll ,·:-I d:-:<llci,, .·\ ( .LII1hcllll dJlll .IL\1\C .c\w·,JILI c· i dlllliJ!l

1<"·''1·1; Pi' 1"'1-l~l.llCilllc'd hy.lllli:CC \':ilc<lll \I \:Jic:/L\1

Decision 2 G.R. No. 185386

Factual Antecedents

On April 2, 2003, an Information3 for illegal sale of methamphetamine

hydrochloride (or shabu) was filed against Menda Aneslag (Menda), Mae Elarmo
(Mae), appellant Bernabe Aneslag (Bernabe) and appellant Jocelyn Concepcion
(Jocelyn) with the RTC of Iligan City, viz:

That on or about March 30, 2003, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping each other, without any authority of
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver six
(6) plastic sachets containing approximately 240 grams of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug commonly known as Shabu.

Contrary to and in violation of Sec. 5 in relation with Sec. 26 of Article II

of RA 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.4

The case was raffled to Branch 6 and docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-10093.
On May 22, 2003, the accused were arraigned and all of them pleaded not guilty.5
Thereafter, trial ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented the testimonies of SPO2 George Salo (SPO2

Salo), SPO2 Edgardo Englatiera (SPO2 Englatiera) and P/Sr. Insp. Aileen Bernido
(P/Sr. Insp. Bernido). The evidence for the prosecution, as summarized in the trial
court’s May 7, 2005 Decision, tends to establish the following:

In 2003, P/Supt. Rolando Abutay was the Regional Director of the

PDEA based in Cagayan de Oro City. SPO2 Edgardo Englatierra was and still is
the Team Leader of the PDEA in Iligan City. His members include SPO2
George Salo and SPO2 Diosdado Cabahug.

3
Id. at 1.
4
Id.
5
Id. at 39.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 185386

Three days prior to March 30, 2003, Supt. Abutay called by phone
Officer Englatierra that there was an expected arrival of shabu in Iligan City and
to watch Room 65 of the Patria Pension at Laya St., Iligan City.

In the early morning of March 30, 2003, Supt. Abutay arrived in Iligan
City with his civilian asset (CA). He conducted a briefing at the PDEA office in
Tipanoy, Iligan City. Present were Officers Englatierra, Salo, Cabahug and the
CA. He informed [them] that there was going to be a “meet” at Room 65 of
Patria Pension. He designated Officer George Salo and his CA to act as poseur
buyers. He instructed Officer Salo and his C[A] to check-in at Room 65 of Patria
Pension. He assigned himself and Officers Englatierra and Cabahug as the back-
up team. He gave to Officer Salo two 500-peso bills to be used as part of the
buy-bust money. They caused the two x x x 500-peso bills to be [photocopied]
and authenticated at the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City, Exh. A.
Then they prepared a boodle money consisting of one genuine 500-peso bill on
top, fake money at the middle and one genuine 500-peso bill at the bottom. After
that Officer Salo and the CA went to the Patria Pension with the boodle money.
They checked in at Rm 65 at about 11:00 a.m. The back-up team stayed at the
office.

At about 4:30 p.m., Supt. Abutay and Officers Englatierra and Cabahug
left the PDEA office. They went directly to the Patria Pension and checked in at
Rm 64 across the corridor from Rm 65. A little later, the CA entered Rm 64 and
handed to them the key to Rm 65.

At about 7:00 p.m., Officer Salo and the CA were inside Rm 65. The
CA received a call on his celphone. After the call, the CA told Officer Salo that
someone will check if they had the money. Several minutes later, they heard a
knock at the door. They saw a woman they did not know but later learned that
she was Mae Elarmo. They invited her inside. Upon entering the room, she
asked if they had the money. Officer Salo showed to her the boodle money. She
simply looked at the bundle and made a call with her celphone. Sometime later,
they heard another knock at the door. The CA opened the door and a man and a
woman entered the room. The man asked where is the money. Officer Salo
showed to him the bundle of money. He looked at the bundle and introduced
himself as Bernabe Aneslag. The female companion did not say anything. They
learned later that she was Minda Aneslag. After Bernabe Aneslag looked at the
bundle of money, he made a call on his celphone. A minute or two later, there
was knock at the door. The CA opened the door. A woman, who was holding a
Ferragamo bag colored red, Exh. F, entered the room. They learned later that her
name is Jocelyn Concepcion y Lao. Bernabe told her to give the bag to Officer
Salo. She handed it to Officer Salo, who received it. He opened the zipper and
looked inside. He found two big packs and four smaller packs of shabu. Then
Bernabe Aneslag asked for the money. Officer Salo handed to him the bundle of
money. After Bernabe Aneslag received the money, the CA pressed his
celphone to give the signal to Supt. Abutay that the transaction was completed.

When Supt. Abutay received the signal, he said let’s go. They went out
of Rm 64, opened the door to Rm 65 with the key and rushed in. They found
inside the room Bernabe Aneslag, Minda Aneslag, Jocelyn Concepcion and Mae
Elarmo. They introduced themselves as police officers, arrested them and
informed them of their rights. Officer Englatierra took possession of the boodle
money from Bernabe Aneslag while Officer Salo took possession of the red bag
and the shabu. They brought them to Pol[i]ce Precinct No. 01 for recording
Decision 4 G.R. No. 185386

purposes and then took them to the PDEA office in Tipanoy, Iligan City. At the
office, Officer Salo marked the two big bags as “GRS-1” and “GRS-2”. He also
marked the four smaller packs as “GS-1, GS-2, GS-3 and GS-4” respectively.
GRS or GS represent[s] his initials. Thereafter, a Request for Laboratory
Examination was prepared, Exh. B. The following day, Officer Salo delivered
the request and the six packs of shabu to the PNP Provincial Crime Laboratory at
Tipanoy, Iligan City. The specimens were originally examined by P/Insp. Mary
Leocy Jabonillo-Mag-abo, Forensic Chemical Officer of the said laboratory.
After her examination, she delivered the specimens to the Office of the City
Prosecutor. However, when this case was called for hearing on July 18, 2003,
the court was informed that Insp. Mag-abo was not available because she was
sent to the Philippine Public Safety College, Makati City to undergo training in
Public Safety Advance Course for a period of four (4) months. To avoid further
delay, the court issued an order directing the PDEA, Iligan City, to arrange for
another laboratory examination of the specimens at the PNP Regional Crime
Laboratory, Cagayan de Oro City, Exh. C. On July 21, 2003, Officer Salo
retrieved the specimens from the Office of the City Prosecutor, Iligan City and
signed a receipt therefor, Exh. B-2. On July 23, 2003, SPO2 Diosdado Cabahug
of the PDEA, Iligan City handcarried the specimens, the Request for Laboratory
Examination, Exh. B, the receipt signed by Officer Salo, Exh. B-2 and the Order
of this court, Exh. C, to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory, Camp Evangelista,
Cagayan de Oro City. PO3 Paltinga, receiving clerk of the Regional Crime
Laboratory, [received] the specimens and the documents, Exh. C-1. Officer
Paltinga turned over the specimen and documents to P/Sr. Insp. Aileen Undag
Bernido, Forensic Chemical Officer. Insp. Bernido immediately performed the
required laboratory examination of the specimens in three steps, namely: the
physical test, color or screening test and the confirmatory test.

The first step, which is the physical test consists of the ocular inspection
and weighing. When she received the specimens, they were inside a closed
brown letter envelope, Exh. E-6. She wrote on the surface of the envelope the
markings “D-419-03 AUB” representing the dangerous drugs number she
assigned to it and her initials. Then she opened the envelope and found inside it
two (2) big packs and four (4) smaller packs containing white crystalline
substance. She found the packs were marked “GRS-1” and “GRS-2” for the two
big packs and “GS-1”, “GS-2”, “GS-3” and “GS-4” respectively for the four
small packs. Both ends of each pack were tape-sealed. She opened the packs
and weighed the contents of each pack individually. The packs weighed as
follows: GRS-1 = 96.4 grams, GRS-2 = 97.2 grams, GS-1, GS-2, GS-3 and GS-
4 weighed 4.1 gamrs (sic) each. The total weight was 210 grams. After
weighing each pack, she removed a representative sample and proceeded to the
color test and confirmatory test. Thus, she followed the following procedure:
First, she marked [the] surface of the pack already marked GRS-1 with the
dangerous drugs number and her initials “D-419-03 AUB”. Then she opened it
and weighed the contents. After that, she removed a representative sample. She
returned the remaining contents into the original pack and resealed it with a
masking tape. She wrote on the masking tape her identification mark “D-419-03
A1 AUB”. Then she proceeded to the color test by applying on the
representative sample a Simons reagent. The results gave a blue color indicating
the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. She continued with
the confirmatory test using a Thin Layer Chromatography. The results confirmed
the findings of the color or screening test. She followed exactly the same
procedure for the succeeding packs. Each pack was accordingly given her own
identification markings, as follows: GRS-2 was marked “D-419-03 A2 AUB”,
Decision 5 G.R. No. 185386

GS-1 was marked “D-419-03 A3 AUB”, GS-2 was marked “D-419-03 A4

AUB”, GS-3 was marked “D-419-03 A5 AUB” and GS-4 was marked “D-419-
03 A6 AUB”. Each of the packs gave positive result for the presence of shabu.
She prepared Chemistry Report No. D-419-03 (re-exam), Exh. “D” which
embodies her findings and conclusion that “Specimens A1 to A6 contain
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug”.6

Version of the Defense

The defense presented the testimonies of Mae, appellant Bernabe and

appellant Jocelyn. The evidence for the defense, as summarized in the trial court’s
May 7, 2005 Decision, tends to establish the following:

Mae Elarmo is 20 years old, single, jobless and a resident of Alubijid,

Misamis Oriental. She is a niece of co-accused Menda Aneslag. Accused
Bernabe Aneslag is the husband of Menda. She calls him Uncle Boy. In March
2003, she resided with the spouses Aneslag at P-02 Buruun, Iligan City.

At about 7 to 7:30 p.m., March 30, 2003, Mae, Bernabe, Menda and Joy
Lao aka Jocelyn Concepcion were having dinner at an ala carte restaurant
somewhere in Iligan City. She could not pinpoint the exact location. They were
having the (sic) dinner on the invitation of Joy Lao. During the dinner, her Uncle
Boy instructed her to go to room 65 of Patria Pension and find out if a woman
named Loren and a male companion were there. He gave her the fare. She rode
on a PU car and went to Patria Pension. On arrival, she went directly to Rm 65.
She knocked at the door and it was opened by the woman, named Loren. She
asked me who are you. Mae replied Uncle Boy sent her. Loren invited her in and
asked where was Uncle Boy. She replied she left him behind. Loren asked “Do
you have the thing now?” Mae replied “What thing”. Loren said “You do not
know” and Mae replied “No”. Loren had a male companion, who was about 30
years old, short, of white complexion, with a short haircut and of medium build.
Loren was tall, white and also about 30 years old. About thirty minutes later,
Bernabe Aneslag, Menda Aneslag and Joy Lao arrived at Rm 65. When they
were already inside the room, the door was suddenly kicked open. Col. Abutay
and companions entered. They pointed guns to them as Col. Abutay declared
“Do not move, this is a buy-bust operation”. They handcuffed Mae, Bernabe,
Menda and Joy and frisked them. They confiscated from Mae her wallet with
P800.00, from Bernabe his watch and wallet, from Menda her celphone,
necklace and wallet and from Joy her money. At this time, Loren and her male
companion already left. Then Col. Abutay called on his celphone saying “Come
here now”. A few minutes later, Officers Englatierra and Cabahug entered the
room. They were taken downstairs and Mae saw George Salo for the first time at
the front desk. They were taken on board a jeep driven by Officer Cabahug to
the Police Precinct 01. After that, they were brought to the PDEA office in
Cagayan de Oro City. The next day, they were taken back to Iligan City.

6
Id. at 171-174.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 185386

She denied that Officer George Salo was in Rm 65 with Loren. She
denied the testimony of Officer Salo that the boodle money was shown to her.
She also denied that her Uncle Boy counted the money. Finally, she declared
that the owner of the shabu was Joy Lao.

Bernabe Aneslag is 52 years old, married and a resident of P-02 Buruun,

Iligan City. Menda Aneslag is his wife. Mae Elarmo is the niece of Menda. He
is the caretaker of the Videogram business of Jocelyn Concepcion Lao.

At about 6:00 p.m., March 30, 2003, Bernabe, Menda, and Mae were at
Cocogroove, Iligan City. They walked towards the jeepney terminal for Buruun
at Roxas Avenue in front of Jollibee in order to take a passenger jeepney for
home. They walked along Quezon Avenue until they reached Roxas Avenue,
then turned right along Roxas until they reached the terminal. They were about
to board a passenger jeepney when Mae told Bernabe that Joy was there. Joy
was at the opposite side of Roxas Avenue near the Dr. Uy Hospital. Bernabe
told Mae to call Joy. Mae crossed the street and approached Joy. Then Joy and
Mae crossed back and approached Bernabe and Menda. Joy invited them to
dinner. They accepted. They walked to the JoArt Restaurant. They did not ride
on a taxi. Joy was holding a red bag. While they were eating, Joy gave to
Bernabe a piece of paper with the words Rm 65 Patria Pension and some names
written on it. Joy asked Bernabe to send Mae to Patria Pension, find Rm 65 and
look for the persons whose names were written on the piece of paper. He
instructed Mae accordingly. Joy gave Mae the fare for a PU car. Mae left.
About fifteen minutes later, Joy told them that they will follow Mae. They rode
on a PU car for Patria Pension. On arrival, Bernabe, Menda and Joy went
directly to Rm 65. Bernabe knocked at the door. A woman opened it. He
entered followed by Menda and Joy. Bernabe saw Mae talking to a man he did
not know. That man was not SPO2 George Salo. Barely a minute or two after
they entered, the door was kicked open and Col. Abutay with two companions
entered the room. Col. Abutay said this is a buy-bust. The companions of Col.
Abutay frisked Bernabe, Menda, Joy and Mae and confiscated their personal
belongings such as wallets, money, jewelry and celphones. Then SPO2
Englatierra and SPO2 Salo entered the room. They were handcuffed and
brought to Police Precinct No. 01 where they made a list of the shabu. About an
hour later, they were brought to Cagayan de Oro City and detained overnight at
the PDEA office. The following morning, they were taken back to Iligan City.
He declared that the man inside Rm 65 when they entered was not Office George
Salo.

Accused Jocelyn Concepcion y Lao testified that she is Jocelyn

Concepcion Lao. She is 38 years old, married, businesswoman and a resident of
P-5A, Behind Village, Bgy. Ma. Cristina, Iligan City. She knows the spouses
Bernabe and Menda Aneslag because they were former neighbors in Canawai,
Iligan City. She operates Videogram machines and a Videoke Bar.

At about 7:00 p.m., March 30, 2003, she was standing along Roxas
Avenue, Iligan City in front of Dr. Uy Hospital. She was waiting for
transportation in order to go home. While waiting, a taxi stopped in front of her.
Menda Aneslag called her from inside the taxi saying “Joy, where are you
going?” She replied she was going home. Menda invited her to have dinner
with them. She accepted and entered the taxi. Menda was with Bernabe
Aneslag and Mae Elarmo. They proceeded on board the taxi to the JoArt
Barbeque Restaurant nearby. They ordered dinner. While they were eating
Decision 7 G.R. No. 185386

Bernabe and Menda talked to each other. Bernabe told Menda to remain in the
restaurant with Joy because he was going somewhere. Menda refused to remain
behind. When Menda insisted on going out with Bernabe, the latter talked to
Mae. Bernabe told Mae to go ahead to Patria Pension and proceed to Rm 65.
After Mae left, they continued with their dinner. After several minutes, Bernabe
received a text message and a voice call on his celphone. When Bernabe
received the message, he told Menda to stay behind with Joy because he will
follow Mae. Menda refused to stay. She insisted to go with Bernabe. Joy paid
for their dinner and the three of them rode on a taxi for Patria Pension. On
arrival, Bernabe immediately alighted and left Menda and Joy inside the taxi. He
entered Patria Pension. Menda immediately followed. Joy paid the taxi fare and
also followed because the red bag of Menda was left behind. When she entered
Patria Pension, she saw Bernabe and Menda going upstairs. She followed and
caught up with them right at the door of Room 65. She noticed that Menda was
angry and had an exchange of words with Bernabe because she suspected that
Bernabe and Mae had a relationship. Bernabe knocked at the door. The door
was opened and they entered. Then a woman closed the door. She saw a male
person and Mae in the room. Just then, the door was forced open and Col.
Abutay and companions entered. They introduced themselves as PDEA agents.
Then the companions of Col. Abutay frisked them and took possession of the red
bag she was holding as well as their personal belongings. Col. Abutay directed
the man and woman to leave the room. After they left, Col. Abutay made a call
on his celphone. After the call, Officers Englatierra and Cabahug entered the
room. They took them to the police station where Col. Abutay showed to her the
red bag containing shabu. That night they were taken to Cagayan de Oro City.
The next day, they were brought back to Iligan City.7

Regional Trial Court’s Ruling

On May 7, 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision finding appellants Bernabe

and Jocelyn guilty of illegal sale of shabu, viz:

WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused BERNABE ANESLAG

and JOCELYN CONCEPCION y Lao aka JOCELYN CONCOPCION (sic)
LAO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principals of violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and hereby imposes upon each of them the penalty of
LIFE IMPRISONMENT and FINE of Five Hundred Thousand (Php
500,000.00) Pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The court finds the accused Menda Aneslag and Mae Elarmo NOT
GUILTY by reason of reasonable doubt.

The six (6) packs of shabu weighing 210 grams are confiscated in favor
of the government to be disposed of pursuant to Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

The accused Bernabe Aneslag and Jocelyn Concepcion have been under
preventive detention since April 1, 2003 until the present. The period of such
7
Id. at 174-176.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 185386

preventive detention shall be credited in full in favor of the accused in the service
of their respective sentences.

The City Warden is directed to discharge from his custody the persons of
Menda Aneslag and Mae Elarmo unless there are other legal grounds for their
continued detention.

SO ORDERED.8

The trial court held that the prosecution was able to establish all the essential
elements of the crime charged. The buyers were SPO2 Salo and the civilian asset
while the sellers were appellants Bernabe and Jocelyn in the presence of Mae and
Menda. The object of the transaction was six packs of shabu. After appellant
Bernabe received the boodle money, appellant Jocelyn delivered the shabu
contained in a red bag to SPO2 Salo. The six packs were tested positive for shabu
as per the laboratory examination by the forensic chemist, P/Sr. Insp. Bernido.

The trial court found the testimonies of the appellants to be conflicting and
a case of finger-pointing. In contrast, the version of the prosecution showed a
logical, consistent and smooth flow of events leading to the arrest of appellants.
Thus, the trial court held that the version of the prosecution was more credible.
However, with respect to Mae and Menda, the trial court rendered a judgment of
acquittal because it was not sufficiently established that the two were in conspiracy
with the appellants. Reasonable doubt existed owing to the fact that Mae and
Menda appeared to be merely a messenger and a companion, respectively, of
appellant Bernabe.

Court of Appeal’s Ruling

On August 27, 2008, the CA rendered the assailed Decision affirming the
aforesaid judgment of conviction, viz:

8
Id. at 180-181.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 185386

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED in

toto.9

In affirming the conviction of the appellants, the CA ruled that: (1) the purported
inconsistencies between the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are trivial
and/or reconcilable, (2) the police operatives in the buy-bust operation did not
need to secure a search warrant because the appellants were caught in flagrante
delicto, (3) the use of fluorescent powder and fingerprinting are not indispensable
in buy-bust operations, (4) the presentation of the marked money is, likewise, not
indispensable in buy-bust operations, (5) the presentation of the confidential
informant is not required, (6) the use of thin layer chromatography to ascertain the
purity of the shabu is not necessary, (7) the case passes the chain of custody test
because from the time of seizure up to the time of laboratory examination the
shabu was in the possession of SPO2 Salo, and (8) the minor discrepancy in the
weight of the shabu can be attributed to the weighing scale used by the police
officers.

Hence, this appeal.

Issue

Whether the CA gravely erred in convicting appellants of the crime

charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.10

Our Ruling

We affirm the findings of the appellate court.

The chain of custody rule was duly

9
CA rollo, p. 189.
10
Id at p. 88.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 185386

complied with.

Appellants argue that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of

custody of the seized shabu and the identity of the substance subjected to
laboratory examination. They claim that the Information alleged the sale of 240
grams of shabu while the trial court found that only 210 grams were sold, thus, a
substantial 30-gram discrepancy existed. In addition, the police officers did not
immediately mark the seized items and no certificate of inventory was prepared
and no photographs taken in accordance with Section 2 of Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No. 1.

We disagree.

Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides the procedure for the
handling of seized or confiscated illegal drugs:

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; x x x

However, non-compliance with Section 21 does not necessarily render the arrest
illegal or the items seized inadmissible.11 What is essential is that the integrity and

11
People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842-843.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 185386

evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved which would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.12 Thus, Section 21, Article
II of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 9165 provides -

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:

(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 person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or
at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/
team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further,
that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and 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. x x x (Emphasis
supplied.)

Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,

which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines the chain of custody —

b. “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and

custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/
confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of
the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody made in the
course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

In Malillin v. People,13 we explained the rationale of the chain of custody rule in

this wise -

12
Id. at 843.
13
G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 185386

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 authorized 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 in evidence, in 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 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.14

In the case at bar, while the procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 was not strictly complied with, we find that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized shabu was duly preserved consistent with the chain
of custody rule. As correctly observed by the appellate court, from the time of the
arrest of the appellants and the confiscation of the subject shabu packs until their
turnover for laboratory examination, SPO2 Salo was in sole possession thereof.
During his testimony, he identified the subject shabu packs and the markings that
he had previously made thereon, viz:

Q: And you said this backup team entered Room 65?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Once they were already in Rm. 65 what did you do?

A: They were the one’s [sic] who arrested and informed them of their rights.

14
Id. at 631-633.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 185386

Q: After the accused were already apprised of their rights by your

companions, what happened to the shabu subject of the case?
A: We brought the accused and the shabu to Police Station 1.

Q: Who was in possession of the shabu?

A: Me sir.

Q: From the time of the arrest until the time these people were brought to
the Police Station?
A: It was me sir.

xxxx

Q: Were you able to bring all the accused and the specimens to the police
station?
A: Yes sir at Police Station 1.

Q: When they were already at the police station 1, what did you do?
A: The blotter was made and we made an inventory of the shabu that was
confiscated.

Q: Was there any Certificate of Inventory made?

A: We do not have a certificate of inventory but we do have logbook.

Q: Were there pictures taken at the time of the inventory?

ATTY. JAVIER:
Objection Your Honor leading.

COURT:
Witness may answer.

A: I cannot remember sir but we have brought with us a camera.

Q: After these persons were brought to the Police Station together with the
specimens from the Police Station where did you proceed?
A: We proceeded to Tipanoy our office.

Q: From the police station 1 to your office at Camp Tomas Cabili, Tipanoy,
Iligan City, who was in possession of the shabu?
A: It was me sir.

xxxx

Q: Upon arrival at Tipanoy being the possessor of these shabu, what did you
do with the shabu?
A: I made a counter sign.

Q: I am showing to you again these six specimen contained in bigger and

smaller packs, will you please point x x x to the court your counter sign
which you said you placed on this specimen?
A: This GRS-1 sir.

Q: What does GRS mean?

Decision 14 G.R. No. 185386

A: George Rito Salo sir my initial.

PROS. ALBULARIO:
GRS-1 for the first pack of shabu, GRS-2 for the second bigger pack and
GS-1 for the smaller packs.

Q: Are you telling this court that you gave x x x different markings to the
big packs and different markings to the smaller packs?
A: Yes sir.

Q: What does GS-1 stands [sic] for?

A: George Salo sir

Q: How about GS-2?

A: The same sir also in GS-3 & GS-4.

Q: After placing these markings, what did you do with these specimens?
A: We delivered it to the crime laboratory located at Camp Tomas Cabili,
Tipanoy, Iligan City.

Q: When you delivered the same specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory at
Camp Tomas Cabili, Tipanoy, Iligan City, who personally brought those
shabu?
A: It was me sir.15

Subsequently, when this case was called for hearing, P/Sr. Insp. Mary Leocy
Jabonillo Mag-abo (P/Sr. Insp. Mag-abo), the forensic chemist from the PNP
Crime Laboratory of Iligan City who conducted the examination on the subject
shabu packs, was unavailable because she had to undergo training in Makati
City.16 Thus, the trial court issued an order for the conduct of another examination
on the subject shabu packs by a forensic chemist in Cagayan de Oro City in order
to expedite the proceedings.17 Consequently, the subject shabu packs were turned
over to SPO2 Salo, as evidenced by an acknowledgement receipt,18 and thereafter
delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory of Cagayan de Oro City where the said
packs were received by PNCO PO3 Paltinca19 who, in turn, forwarded the same to
P/Sr. Insp. Bernido, the examiner assigned to this case.20 The chemistry report21
and testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Bernido corroborated the testimony of SPO2 Salo

15
TSN, February 2, 2004, pp. 27-31.
16
Records, p. 105.
17
Id.
18
Id. at 104.
19
TSN, July 31, 2003, p. 11.
20
Id. at 13.
21
Records, p. 106.
Decision 15 G.R. No. 185386

relative to the markings the latter made on the packs of shabu (i.e., GRS-1 and
GRS-2 for the bigger packs, and GS-1, GS-2, GS-3, and GS-4 for the smaller
packs)22 as well as the number and size of the shabu packs (i.e., two big packs and
four smaller packs).23 P/Sr. Insp. Bernido identified the shabu packs in court as
well as the separate markings she made thereon; she further testified that the six
packs tested positive for shabu.

Based on the foregoing, we find that the chain of custody rule was
complied with. The prosecution’s evidence sufficiently established an unbroken
link in the chain of custody which precluded the alteration, substitution or
tampering of the subject shabu packs.

Anent appellants’ claim that the total weight of the shabu packs as alleged
in the Information, i.e., 240 grams,24 varies substantially from the total weight as
determined by the forensic chemist, i.e., 210 grams, we find the same insufficient
to overcome the previous finding that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated shabu was duly preserved. As noted by the appellate court, there are a
host of possible reasons for the variance such as the difference in the accuracy of
the weighing scales used by the police operatives vis-à-vis the forensic chemist.
We also note that: (1) as previously narrated, the subject shabu packs were twice
tested by two different forensic chemists in order to expedite the proceedings as
per the order of the trial court so that representative samples of the shabu were
taken from the aforesaid packs by the first forensic chemist (P/Sr. Insp. Mag-abo)
which could have affected the total weight as determined by the second forensic
chemist (P/Sr. Insp. Bernido), and (2) P/Sr. Insp. Bernido testified that when she
weighed each pack of shabu, the same was done without the packaging material
thereof25 which could have, likewise, affected the total weight of the shabu.

22
TSN, July 31, 2003, p. 14.
23
Id. at 19-23.
24
Records, p. 1.
25
TSN, July 31, 2003, p. 43.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 185386

Appellants further advert to the alleged inconsistent, conflicting and

incredible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. According to appellants,
SPO2 Salo testified that appellant Jocelyn handed to him (SPO2 Salo) a red bag
containing six packs of shabu while SPO2 Englatiera testified that the said bag
was in front of Mae and that SPO2 Salo told him (SPO2 Englatiera) that the bag
was taken from Mae. Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses testified that SPO2
Salo and the civilian asset were inside Room 65 while police officers Abutay,
Englatiera and Cabahug were in Room 64. However, paragraph 4 of the joint
affidavit executed by police officers Salo, Englatiera and Cabahug before the city
prosecutor stated that they were posted facing the area where the transaction is to
be conducted and had a clear view of the operation.

The contention is untenable.

We have examined the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and we

find that the alleged inconsistencies are minor or trivial which serve to strengthen,
rather than destroy, the credibility of the said witnesses as they erase doubts that
the said testimonies had been coached or rehearsed.26

Anent the matter of who was holding the red bag containing the shabu
before it was confiscated by the police operatives, the trial court found more
credible the testimony of SPO2 Salo that the said bag was given to him (SPO2
Salo) by appellant Jocelyn after he paid for the shabu with boodle money. We
cannot fault the trial court for making this finding because SPO2 Salo was the one
present during the buying transaction. SPO2 Englatiera arrived only after the pre-
arranged signal (as to the completion of the sale of the shabu) was given to him,
along with the other members of the backup team, who then entered the room and
arrested the appellants. SPO2 Englatiera’s testimony, therefore, on this matter is
hearsay.

26
People v. Diaz, 331 Phil. 240, 251-252 (1996).
Decision 17 G.R. No. 185386

Anent appellants’ claim of inconsistency between the joint affidavit

executed by the police officers, namely, Salo, Englatiera and Cabahug vis-à-vis
the testimonies of police officers Salo and Englatiera in open court, we find the
same to be misleading because appellants quoted only a portion of the said
affidavit. An examination of the whole joint affidavit reveals that the same is
consistent with the testimonies of police officers Salo and Englatiera in open court.
Specifically, the joint affidavit states that “while in the area[,] we (referring to
Salo, Englatiera, Cabahug) posted ourselves fronting the place of [the] buying
transaction [where] we had a clear view of the progress of the operation.”27
However, the succeeding paragraphs of the joint affidavit narrated the ensuing
events as well as the individual roles of SPO2 Salo and the confidential agent, as
poseur buyers, and police officers Englatiera and Cabahug, as part of the backup
team, which is consistent with the testimonies of police officers Salo and
Englatiera in open court.28

Finally, appellants contend that appellant Bernabe was not subjected to

ultra-violet powder examination or finger printing casting doubt as to whether he
was the one who allegedly received and counted the boodle money. They also
question the reliability of the Thin Layer Chromatography used by the forensic
chemist in determining the presence of shabu in the six packs seized from
appellants. Moreover, appellants argue that the police officers should have first
secured a search warrant given that they conducted a surveillance of the place
three days prior to the buy-bust operation.

27
Records, p. 2.
28
The Joint Affidavit pertinently stated:
That I[,] SPO2 GEORGE R[.] SALO[,] was tasked as a poseur buyer, while the other acted as back-up,
that I together with our Confidential Agent check-in [sic] room 65 of the aforementioned place, having
transaction with a certain woman identified as MAE. The transaction was [sic] took place inside the
said room to buy SHABU worth 282,000.00 on March 30, 2003 more or less 7:00 P.M. As the
transaction went to [sic] SPO2 GEORGE R[.] SALO presented to MAE th[e] boodle money worth
282,000.00 of which only 1,000.00 is the real money while the rest are boodle money[.] [A]fter
checking the money[,] MAE called her companion using cellphone in [sic] which minutes later two
persons arrived in above-mentioned identified only [as] Bernabe and Menda. The two checking the
money again and one of them called another companion using cellphone. Few minutes leater [sic] a
woman identified only as Joy arrived at Room 65 bringing her red bag with suspected SHABU place[d]
inside the said place [sic]. (Id.)
Decision 18 G.R. No. 185386

The contentions are, likewise, untenable.

Neither law nor jurisprudence requires that the police must apply
fluorescent powder to the buy-bust money to prove the commission of the
offense.29 The same holds true for the conduct of finger print examination on the
money used in the buy-bust operation. What is crucial is that the prosecution
proves, as in this case, the delivery of the prohibited drugs to the poseur-buyer and
the presentation of the confiscated drugs before the court.30

Anent the claim that the Thin Layer Chromatography used by the forensic
chemist in determining the presence of shabu in the six packs is unreliable, we
find the same to be unsubstantiated. Except for their bare allegation, the defense
did not present clear and convincing evidence to prove that the findings of the
forensic chemist were erroneous.

Lastly, anent appellants’ contention that the police operatives should have
first secured a search warrant, we agree with the observation of the trial court that
it would have been impracticable to secure such a search warrant because
appellants were not residing in the agreed meeting place (i.e., Room 65 of Patria
Pension) at the time of the surveillance. The surveillance was conducted for the
mere purpose of determining the respective roles and positions of the police
operatives in anticipation of the buying transaction which was to happen there
three days later. More important, in a buy-bust operation, the police operatives are
not required to secure a search warrant because the violator is caught in flagrante
delicto and the police officers, in the course of the operation, are not only
authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for
anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.31

All in all, we find that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable

29
People v. So, 421 Phil. 929, 943 (2001).
30
Id.
31
People v. Juatan, 329 Phil. 331, 337-338 (1996).
 ( I.R. Nu. 1~5JS6

Li\ltlht tile elements u!' the crime ur illegal sale of .Jhulm: (I) the identity or the
hu; .:1 ~u1d seller. the ubject and considera[ion: and (2) the delivery orthe drug sold
~IJlci Jb p~tyment 3 ~ HeiJCe. the C()ll\'ictiun ufappelLmts was proper.

\\ HFRFFORE. the appe<d is DISMISSED. The f\uuust

c 27. 2008
[ kli"J'lll ,)! the Court of Appeals in C.\-( i.R. CR-11.( ·. No. ()()I T2 is

\FFIRi\IFI).

SO ORDERED.

i'\1ARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Assuciute Juslic:e

\\ L c (ll"JCl!l<:

. lssul'iure .lust icc

( '/w lij Jc'I'Si Jll

.-/ssociuft.! .luYiice , ssoc iure Just ice

 2(1

ATTESTATION

l ~1Lle:sl that the conclusions 111 the above Decision had been reached in
l:()!bLJILJtiun before the case was assigned to the \Vriter of the opinion of the

az::_l_a_,
L::.~
ANTONIO T.
;lssoc:iote .Justice
Cho irperson

CERTIFICATION

certii~~ that the conclusions i,, Lhe ctbovc Decisicm had been reached in
<Ttli:'liil:JtioiJ ild(xe the case \VC:lS assigned to the \\Titer of the opinion of the
( ourl·c, [)j, ision.

~~_..r-- ....
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chzej./z;sri:;e