l\epublic of tbe tlbilippines

~upreme <!Court
;!fmanila
FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 212160

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Present:

SERENO, CJ., Chairperson,

- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
PEREZ, and
DENNIS SUMILI, PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
Accused-Appellant.
Promulgated:

FEB 0 4 2015
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

1
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal assailing the Decision2 dated
January 29, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No.
01075, which affirmed in toto the Decision3 dated August 10, 2009 of the
Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 3 (RTC) in Crim. Case No.
12595 finding accused-appellant Dennis Sumili (Sumili) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, 4 Article II of Republic Act No.

Notice of Appeal dated February 7, 2014; ratio, pp. 10-11.

Id. at 3-9. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren with Associate Justices Marie Christine
Azcarraga-Jacob and Edward 8. Contreras concurring.
CA rollo, pp. 27-30. Penned by Presiding Judge Albert B. Abragan.
The pertinent portion of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 reads:

SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and

Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (PI 0,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity
and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

xx xx

tJ
Decision 2 G.R. No. 212160

(RA) 9165,5 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

of 2002.

The Facts

On June 30, 2006, an Information6 was filed before the RTC charging
Sumili of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, viz.:

Crim. Case No. 12595

That, on or about June 7, 2006, in the City of Iligan, Philippines,

and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) sachet of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug commonly known as Shabu for the
amount of 200.00.

Contrary to and in violation of Sec. 5, ART. II, RA 9165,

otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

City of Iligan, June 30, 2006.

According to the prosecution, on June 7, 2006, the Philippine Drug

Enforcement Agency Iligan City Sub-Office received a report from a
confidential informant that Sumili was selling shabu. Acting on the same,
SPO2 Edgardo Englatiera 7 (SPO2 Englatiera) dispatched SPO2 Diosdado
Cabahug (SPO2 Cabahug) to conduct surveillance on Sumili, which
confirmed the truth and veracity of the aforesaid report. Consequently, SPO2
Englatiera organized a team divided into two (2) groups and briefed them on
the buy-bust operation. He also prepared the marked money, consisting of
one (1) two hundred peso ( 200.00) bill, with serial number L507313.8

At around 5:10 in the afternoon of the same day, the buy-bust team
headed to the target area. Upon arrival, the poseur-buyer approached
Sumilis house to buy shabu. After Sumili let the poseur-buyer in, the latter
gave the pre-arranged signal that the sale has been consummated. Almost
immediately, the buy-bust team stormed the house but Sumili escaped by
jumping through the window, throwing the marked money at the roof beside
his house. The poseur-buyer turned over the sachet of suspected shabu to
SPO2 Englatiera, who marked the same with DC-1, representing the
initials of SPO2 Cabahug. 9 SPO2 Englatiera then prepared a request for

5
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 (July 4, 2002).
6
Records, p. 1. Signed by Prosecutor I Celso M. Sarsaba.
7
Inglatera in some parts of the records.
8
Rollo, p. 4.
9
Id. at 4-5.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 212160

laboratory examination and instructed Non-Uniform Personnel Carlito Ong

(NUP Ong) to bring the sachet together with the request to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for examination. However, NUP Ong failed to do so on the same
day as the PNP Crime Laboratory was already closed.10 It was only on June
9, 2006, or two (2) days after the buy-bust operation, that NUP Ong was able
to bring and turn-over the seized sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory. 11
Upon examination, it was confirmed that said sachet contained 0.32 grams
of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.12

In his defense, Sumili denied selling shabu. He and his daughter

claimed that he was a fishball vendor, and that on the date and time of the
incident, he was at the market buying ingredients. When he returned to his
residence, his wife told him that policemen were looking for him.13

The RTC Ruling

In a Decision14 dated August 10, 2009, the RTC found Sumili guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and
accordingly, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to pay a
fine in the amount of 500,000.00.15

The RTC found that a buy-bust operation indeed occurred where

Sumili sold the seized sachet to the poseur-buyer. In this regard, it gave
credence to the straightforward and categorical testimonies of prosecution
witnesses detailing how the police officers received information that Sumili
was selling shabu, investigated and confirmed that he indeed was selling
shabu, conducted the buy-bust operation, recovered, marked, and
transmitted the seized item from Sumili to the PNP Crime Laboratory, and
that the laboratory results yielded positive for shabu. Conversely, it did not
give weight to the defense testimonies which merely denied the existence of
the buy-bust operation and insisted that Sumili was not selling drugs.16

Dissatisfied, Sumili appealed17 his conviction to the CA.

10
See Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), August 6, 2007, pp. 16-17.
11
Id. at 8.
12
See rollo, pp. 5 and 7. See also Chemistry Report No. D-91-06 examined by Police Inspector, Forensic
Chemical Officer Leaslie C. Segualan, RMT, records, p. 48, and TSN, May 28, 2007, pp. 3-6.
13
Id. at 5-6.
14
CA rollo, pp. 27-30.
15
Id. at 30.
16
See id. at 29-30.
17
See Notice of Appeal dated September 18, 2009; id. at 8.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 212160

The CA Ruling

In a Decision 18 dated January 29, 2014, the CA affirmed Sumilis

conviction in toto. 19 It agreed with the RTCs finding that a buy-bust
operation actually occurred, resulting in the seizure of a sachet containing
shabu. 20 Further, the CA also held that despite the police officers non-
compliance with the procedure enshrined in Section 21, Article II of RA
9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, or the seized drug itself,
was nevertheless preserved and, thus, Sumilis conviction must be
sustained.21

Finally, the CA opined that Sumili failed to rebut by clear and

convincing evidence the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties enjoyed by the police officers involved in the buy-bust
operation.22

Aggrieved, Sumili filed the instant appeal.23

The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Courts resolution is whether Sumilis conviction for
violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld.

The Courts Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

In order to convict an accused for violation of RA 9165, or the crime

of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the concurrence of
the following elements: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment.24 Note that what remains material for conviction is the proof that
the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the
court of the corpus delicti. 25 It is also important that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items be preserved. Simply put, the
dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against an accused must be
the same as that seized from him. The chain of custody requirement removes

18
Rollo, pp. 3-9.
19
Id. at 9.
20
Id. at 7.
21
Id. at 7-8.
22
Id. 9.
23
See Notice of Appeal dated February 7, 2014; id. at 10-11.
24
People v. Almodiel, G.R. No. 200951, September 5, 2012, 680 SCRA 306, 316.
25
Id., citing People v. De La Cruz, G.R. No. 185717, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 597, 609.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 212160

any unnecessary doubts regarding the identity of the evidence.26 As held in

People v. Viterbo:27

In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under

Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur:
(a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, object, and consideration;
and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the corresponding payment
for it. As the dangerous drug itself forms an integral and key part of
the corpus delicti of the crime, it is therefore essential that the identity
of the prohibited drug be established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus,
the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of
custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment it was seized from
the accused up to the time it was presented in court as proof of the
corpus delicti. Elucidating on the custodial chain process, the Court, in the
case of People v. Cervantes [(600 Phil. 819, 836 [2009])], held:

As a mode 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.
In context, this would ideally include testimony about
every link in the chain, from the seizure of the
prohibited drug up to the time it is offered into
evidence, in such a way that everyone 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. x x x.

The chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts

respecting the identity of the evidence are minimized if not altogether
removed.28 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

To expand, Section 2129 of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody

rule outlining the procedure that the apprehending officers should follow in
26
See People v. Almodiel, supra note 24, at 323-324.
27
See G.R. No. 203434, July 23, 2014.
28
See id.
29
The pertinent portions of Section 21 of RA 9165 read:
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 drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same
in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well
Decision 6 G.R. No. 212160

handling the seized drugs, in order to preserve its integrity and evidentiary
value. It requires, inter alia, that: (a) the apprehending team that has initial
custody over the seized drugs immediately conduct an inventory and take
photographs of the same in the presence of the accused or the person from
whom such items were seized, or the accuseds or the persons
representative or counsel, a representative from the media, the Department
of Justice, and any elected public official who shall then sign the copies of
the inventory; and (b) the seized drugs be turned over to the PNP Crime
Laboratory within 24 hours from its confiscation for examination purposes.
While the chain of custody rule demands utmost compliance from the
aforesaid officers, Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of RA 9165,30 as well as jurisprudence nevertheless provide that non-
compliance with the requirements of this rule will not automatically render
the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, so long as: (a) there is
a justifiable ground for such non-compliance; AND (b) the evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly preserved. Hence, any divergence from the
prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect the integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated items.31

After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds that the
prosecution failed to establish the identity of the substance allegedly
confiscated from Sumili due to unjustified gaps in the chain of custody, thus,
militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

As may be gleaned from the established facts, the buy-bust operation

was conducted on June 7, 2006. When SPO2 Englatiera seized the sachet
from Sumili, he marked the same with the initials DC-1 and, later, he
returned to the police station to prepare the request for the examination of
the sachets contents. Thereafter, he ordered NUP Ong to bring the sachet as
well as the request to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. However,
NUP Ong failed to do so within 24 hours after the buy-bust operation as he
only delivered the sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory on June 9, 2006, or
two (2) days after the buy-bust operation. No other than SPO2 Englatiera
and NUP Ong attested to these facts in their respective testimonies, to wit:32

Prosecutor Celso Sarsaba (Pros. Sarsaba): Who prepared this request for
laboratory examination?

SPO2 Englatiera: I myself, sir.

as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to

the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination.
xxxx
30
See Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165.
31
See People v. Viterbo, supra note 27, citing People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366, December 13, 2010,
637 SCRA 791, 813.
32
TSN, August 6, 2007, pp. 16-17.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 212160

Q: What did you do with the request for the laboratory examination
together with the one sachet of shabu?

A: I instructed [NUP Ong] to turn-over the evidence and bring for

laboratory examination (sic).

Q: Was [NUP Ong] able to bring the request for laboratory examination
together with the sachet of shabu to the crime laboratory on that same
day?

A: The following day.

Q: Why?

A: Because it was already 5:00 oclock (sic) sir I think it was Friday sir,
the laboratory was already closed.

xxxx

As for NUP Ong:33

Pros. Sarsaba: And how about the one sachet of shabu allegedly bought
from the accused, who was in possession of that shabu at that time?

NUP Ong: SPO2 [Englatiera] placed it inside the cellophane attached

together with the request.

Q: And who was supposed to bring that request for laboratory

[examination] and the one sachet of shabu allegedly purchased from the
accused to the PNP crime laboratory?

A: No, it was already late at night so we agreed to do it on the following

day.

Q: So June 7, 2006, do you recall what day was that?

A: I think it was [a] Friday.

Q: And when did you bring this request for laboratory [examination] to the
[PNP] crime laboratory, on what date?

A: It was delivered on June 9, 2006.

xxxx

To justify the delay in the turn-over of the corpus delicti, SPO2

Englatiera and NUP Ong insist that the PNP Crime Laboratory was already
closed on June 7, 2006, and since it was a Friday, the delivery of the seized
sachet was only done on June 9, 2006. However, contrary to their claims,
June 7, 2006 is not a Friday, but a Wednesday.34 Thus, if the PNP Crime
33
Id. at 8.
34
Calendar for year 2006 (Philippines), <www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=2006&country=67>
(visited January 14, 2015).
Decision 8 G.R. No. 212160

Laboratory was indeed closed on June 7, 2006, the delivery of the seized
sachet could have easily been done on the next day, or on June 8, 2006,
instead of doing it two (2) days after the buy-bust operation. This glaring
fact, coupled with the absence in the records as to who among the
apprehending officers had actual custody of the seized sachet from the time
it was prepared for turn-over until its delivery to the PNP Crime Laboratory,
presents a substantial and unexplained gap in the chain of custody of the
alleged shabu seized from Sumili. Undoubtedly, the integrity and
evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised.

It must be emphasized that in criminal prosecutions involving illegal

drugs, the presentation of the drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the
crime calls for the necessity of proving with moral certainty that they are the
same seized items. 35 Failing in which, the acquittal of the accused on the
ground of reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right, 36 as in this case.

In sum, since the identity of the prohibited drugs had not been
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt, Sumili's conviction must be
immediately set aside.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated

January 29, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01075 is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and accordingly, accused-appellant
Dennis Sumili is ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being
lawfully held for any other reason.

SO ORDERED.

ESTELA ~~BERNABE
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Chairperson

35
See People v. Viterbo, supra note 27, citing People v. Almorfe, G.R. No. 181831, March 29, 20 I0, 617
SCRA 52, 61.
36
See id., citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008).
Decision 9 G.R. No. 212160

~~k~
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

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

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice