SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 222559, June 06, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JENNIFER GA-A Y CORONADO, Accused,

AQUILA "PAYAT" ADOBAR, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J.:

This is an Appeal1 filed pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court from the Decision2 dated July
31, 2015 (assailed Decision) of the Court of Appeals, Twenty-Second (22nd) Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC
No. 01192-MIN. The assailed Decision affirmed in toto the Judgment3 dated July 25, 2013 rendered by the
Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25 (trial court), in Criminal Case (CC) No. 2011-485,
which found accused-appellant Aquila4 "Payat" Adobar (Adobar) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation
of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,5 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002."6

The accusatory portion of the Information7 filed on June 1, 2011 against Adobar reads:

That on or about May 9, 2011[,] at about 11:00 in the morning, more or less, at 32ndStreet, Ramonal
Village, [Barangay] Camaman-an, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to sell, trade, dispense and
give away any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and illegally sell, trade, dispense and
give away to another one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance,
to PDEA Agent Naomie Siglos, who acted as poseur-buyer, which after a confirmatory test conducted by the
PNP Crime Laboratory, said sachet is found positive of the presence of 0.03 grams of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug commonly known as shabu, in consideration of Five Hundred pesos
(Php500.00) with Serial No. MR443620 which is recorded as marked money in a buy bust operation.

Contrary to and in Violation of Section 5 Article II of R.A. 9165.8

Adobar's co-accused, Jennifer Ga-a y Coronado (Ga-a), was charged on May 12, 2011 in two (2) other
separate Informations for violation of Sections 119 and 1510, respectively, both of Article II of RA 9165. On
September 27, 2011, she pleaded not guilty11 to both offenses charged and trial as against her commenced.

Meanwhile, Adobar remained at large until he was apprehended via an alias warrant of arrest12 on February
13, 2012.13 Upon his arraignment on April 2, 2012, Adobar entered a plea of "not guilty."14

As the cases against both accused arose out of the same incident, the parties adopted in the present case
(Criminal Case No. 2011-485) the testimonies of the witnesses already called to the stand in Criminal Case
Nos. 2011-422 to 423 prior to Adobar's arrest. Thereafter, joint trial on the three (3) cases continued as to
the remaining witnesses for both prosecution and defense.15

The Facts

Version of the Prosecution:

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Agents 1)
IO1 Naomie Siglos (IO1 Siglos); 2) IO3 Alex Tablate (IO3 Tablate); 3) IO1 Nestle Carin (IO1 Carin); 4)
Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Erma Salvacion - Sampaga (PCI Sampaga); and 5) Punong Barangay Dometilo
Acenas, Jr. (Punong Barangay Acenas).16

The prosecution dispensed with the testimony of PCI Sampaga, the forensic chemist,17 after the defense
stipulated on certain matters.18

The prosecution made the following narration of facts:

On May 9, 2011, at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning, a team of PDEA Regional Office X agents, Cagayan
de Oro City (collectively, buy-bust team), organized a buy-bust operation against Adobar and his live-in
partner based on information from a Confidential Informant (CI), who came to said office that morning, and
from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) National Drug Information System watchlist of drug
personalities which included Adobar.19 In the meeting, assignments were made as follows: IO1 Siglos as
poseur-buyer, IO3 Tablate as apprehending and investigating officer and the rest of the agents as back-up.
IO1 Siglos was given a buy-bust money of one (1) piece of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) bill.20

After the briefing, the buy-bust team proceeded to the residence of Adobar at 32nd St., Ramonal Village,
Camaman-an, Cagayan de Oro City in two (2) unmarked service vehicles.21 Upon arrival, at about 11:00
o'clock in the morning, they parked the vehicles about 20 to 30 meters away from Adobar's residence. IO1
Siglos and the CI alighted and walked towards Adobar's house, outside of which a man, identified by the CI
as Adobar, was standing.

The CI introduced IO1 Siglos to Adobar as a friend who was interested to buy shabu (subject drugs). Adobar
asked IO1 Siglos how much worth of shabu she wanted to buy and the latter answered P500.00, while
handing the buy-bust money to Adobar. Upon receipt of the money, Adobar excused himself to get the
"item" inside the house. In less than a minute,22 Adobar came back and handed to IO1 Siglos one heat-
sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu.23 After examining
the sachet, IO1 Siglos rubbed the back of her head, signaling her colleagues to respond to the scene.

Upon seeing the signal, IO3 Tablate, who earlier positioned himself about ten (10) meters away from the
group of IO1 Siglos24 and who witnessed the exchange between IO1 Siglos and Adobar,25 alerted the rest of
the team.26 The team responded and rushed towards Adobar, with IO3 Tablate shouting "dapa, dapa[,]
PDEA!"27 Adobar ran inside his house and locked the front door behind him.28 The buy-bust team forced
open the door, cleared the ground floor then proceeded to the second floor where they found a small
window through which they suspected Adobar to have escaped.29 The buy-bust money was not recovered.

In another room on the same floor,30 IO3 Tablate found Ga-a. Near her were seventeen (17) pieces of
transparent sachets containing suspected shabu together with other drug paraphernalia on top of a
table.31 Upon inquiry, Ga-a introduced herself as Mecaella, the live-in partner of Adobar, and claimed that
the shabu on the table were from Adobar.32

Meanwhile, IO1 Siglos held custody of the subject drugs seized from Adobar until the same was turned over
to IO3 Tablate for marking by the latter.

After "clearing" Adobar's house, IO3 Tablate called for Camaman-an Punong Barangay Acenas, media
representative Rondie Cabrejas of Magnum Radyo33 (media representative) and an unidentified
representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ).34 Thereafter, the sachets of suspected shabu,
including the subject drugs, were marked35 with IO3 Tablate's initials, "AMT."36 After the marking, IO3
Tablate proceeded with the inventory of the seized items (including the subject drugs) on the table where
the seventeen (17) sachets were found,37 and prepared the Inventory of Seized Items/Confiscated Non-
Drugs (Inventory)38 in the presence of Ga-a.39 Photographs40 of the seized drugs, the room where they were
found and the accomplishment of the Inventory were then taken.41 It appears from the prosecution's
submissions that among the three (3) witnesses summoned, only Punong Barangay Acenas and the media
representative arrived at Adobar's house and witnessed42 and signed the Inventory.43

The buy-bust team and Ga-a proceeded to the PDEA RO-10, with IO3 Tablate in possession of all seized
items, including the subject drugs.44 Upon arrival, IO3 Tablate prepared a request for the examination of the
seized items with the Regional Crime Laboratory Office 10 (crime lab)45 and personally delivered said items
thereto.46

Version of the Defense

The defense called to the stand accused-appellant Adobar and accused Ga-a who narrated the following
pertinent facts:

In the morning of May 9, 2011, Ga-a was alone cooking her lunch inside the house of Adobar where she was
a tenant when she heard a loud pounding on the door.47 Suddenly, about ten (10) armed persons entered
the house. After introducing themselves as PDEA agents,48 they proceeded to search the house49 and
destroyed Ga-a's belongings50 while looking for a certain "Payat."51 Ga-a was likewise bodily searched by a
woman.52 She was then invited to go to the PDEA office and as they were about to leave, the agents called
for a barangay official.53 Ga-a claimed that the evidence presented by the prosecution were "planted" by the
PDEA agents.54

Adobar, on the other hand, testified that on May 9, 2011, he went to Opol at 5:00 o'clock in the morning to
buy fish for vending.55 He then took the same to Abellanosa St., Cagayan de Oro City where he stayed until
he went home at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, when the fish were sold out.56 When he arrived at his
house, he noticed that the door was destroyed and the belongings inside were disarranged.57 He was
likewise informed by the neighbors that Ga-a was arrested by PDEA agents58 but he did not think to report
the incident to the police as he was unschooled.59 On February 12, 2012, he was arrested while selling fish
under the bridge in Abellanosa St.60

The Ruling of the trial court

In the Judgment dated July 25, 2013, the trial court found Adobar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense charged and imposed upon him the penalty of Life Imprisonment with a fine of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

In a two-paragraph discussion, the trial court held that under the circumstances, there was probable cause
to arrest Adobar. As between his and the prosecution's conflicting versions of facts, the latter's was more
believable. No discussion was made on the compliance by the PDEA team with the required procedures
under relevant laws, rules and regulations particularly, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, albeit such was
raised as an issue by the defense.61

On the other hand, the trial court acquitted accused Ga-a in both Criminal Case Nos. 2011-422 and 2011-
423, holding that the PDEA agents had no probable cause to search and arrest her. Moreover, the urine
sample taken from Ga-a and the results of the chemical examination made thereon showing the same
positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride are inadmissible in evidence, being fruits of the poisonous
tree.62

The fallo of the trial court Judgment reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds that:

1. In Criminal Cases Nos. 2011-422 and 2011-423, for failure of the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, JENNIFER C. GAA is hereby ACQUITTED of the
offenses charged. The Warden of the BJMP having custody of JENNIFER C. GAA is hereby directed
to immediately release her from detention unless she is accused of other crimes which will justify
her continued incarceration.

2. In Criminal Case No. 2011-485, accused AQUILO ADOBAR a.k.a. "Payat" is GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of the offense defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165
as charged in the Information, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Life
Imprisonment and to pay the Fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos [P500,000.00],
without subsidiary penalty in case of non-payment of fine.

Let the penalty imposed on accused Adobar be a lesson and an example to all who have the criminal
propensity, inclination and proclivity to commit the same forbidden act that crime does not pay, and that the
pecuniary gain and benefit, as well as the perverse psychological well being which one can derive from
selling or manufacturing or trading drugs, or other illegal substance, or from using, or possessing, or just
committing any other acts penalized under Republic Act 9165, cannot compensate for the penalty which one
will suffer if ever he is prosecuted and penalized to the full extent of the law.

SO ORDERED.63 (Emphasis in the original)

Adobar appealed to the CA via Notice of Appeal.64 He filed his Brief65 dated January 3, 2014, while the
People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed its Brief66 dated April 28, 2014. In a
Resolution67 dated June 18, 2014, the CA considered Adobar to have waived his right to file a Reply Brief.

The Ruling of the CA

In the assailed Decision, the CA affirmed in toto the trial court Judgment as follows:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Judgment dated July 25,2013 of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.68
The CA held that the prosecution adequately proved all the elements of the crime. It held that the
prosecution sufficiently established all the links in the chain of custody as to remove doubt on the integrity
of the subject drugs.

Anent the alleged failure of the PDEA agents to comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 as the media
and DOJ representatives, respectively, were not presented to testify on the Inventory which they supposedly
witnessed, the CA held that this lapse did not render the subject drugs seized inadmissible because the
prosecution had duly shown that its integrity and evidentiary value were preserved. According to the CA,
substantial adherence - not strict adherence - to the requirements of Section 21 suffices and the same was
satisfied by the PDEA agents.

Hence, this recourse.

In lieu of filing supplemental briefs, Adobar and the People filed separate Manifestations dated July 4,
201669 and June 16, 2016,70 respectively, foregoing their right to file supplemental briefs as they have
exhausted their arguments in their respective Briefs filed before the CA.

Issue

The main question thrown to the Court for resolution is whether or not accused-appellant Adobar is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of sale of illegal drugs as defined and punished under Section 5, Article II of RA
9165.

The Court's Ruling

The Appeal has merit.

Adobar is charged with selling 0.03 gram of dangerous illegal drugs, in particular, Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride colloquially known as shabu. At the outset, RA 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Acts of 2002, being the law in place at the time of the commission of the offense and
being more favorable to the accused than its successor, RA 10640,71 shall apply in this case.

Section 3(ii), Article I of RA 9165 defines "selling" as any act of giving away any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for money or any other consideration. In the context of
a buy-bust operation, its elements are 1) that the transaction or sale took place between the accused and
the poseur buyer; and 2) that the dangerous drugs subject of the transaction or sale is presented in court as
evidence of the corpus delicti.72

Anent the latter element, proof beyond reasonable doubt must be adduced in establishing the corpus
delicti - the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.73 It is important that the State
establish with moral certainty the integrity and identity of the illicit drugs sold as the same as those
examined in the laboratory and subsequently presented in court as evidence.74 This rigorous requirement,
known under RA 9165 as the chain of custody,75 performs the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.76

In turn, Section 21 of RA 9165 is a critical means to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody77by
providing for the procedures to be followed in the seizure, custody and disposition of confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Section 21 of RA 9165 provides:
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 as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative
examination;

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the
forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject
item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame,
a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of
dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification
shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four
(24) hours; (Emphasis supplied and italics in the original)
Filling in the details as to where the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items should be
made is Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 (IRR) which reads:

(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; xxx (Emphasis supplied)
The same likewise provides for a saving clause in case of noncompliance with the requirements of RA 9165
and the IRR, thus:
xxx Provided, further, that non-compliance 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)
The foregoing is echoed in Section 2(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) Regulation No. 1, Series of
2002, to wit:
a. The apprehending team having initial custody and control of dangerous drugs or controlled chemical or
plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment shall immediately, after the seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of:

(i) the person from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized or his/her representative or counsel;

(ii) a representative from the media;

(iii) a representative from the Department of Justice; and,

(iv) any elected public official;

who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory report covering the drugs/equipment and who shall 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 seizure without warrant; Provided further
that non-compliance with these requirement under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team xxx.
In sum, the applicable law mandates the following to be observed as regards the time, witnesses and proof
of inventory in the custody of seized dangerous illegal drugs:
 1. The initial custody requirements must be done immediately after seizure or
confiscation;

2. The physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of:
a. the accused or his representative or counsel;

b. a representative from the media;

c. a representative from the DOJ; and

d. any elected public official.

3. The conduct of the physical inventory and photograph shall be done at the:
a. place where the search warrant is served; or

b. at the nearest police station; or

c. nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is

practicable, in case of warrantless seizure.

In People v. Dela Cruz,78 it was explained that compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by
Section 21 ensures the integrity of confiscated drugs and related paraphernalia in four (4) respects: first,
the nature of the substances or items seized; second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of the substances or items
seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident allegedly causing their seizure;
and fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the personls alleged to have been in possession
of or peddling them.

Compliance with the requirements forecloses opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering of
evidence in any manner. Non compliance, on the other hand, is tantamount to failure in establishing the
identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, thus,
engendering the acquittal of an accused.79

However, the law allows such non-compliance in exceptional cases where the following requisites are
present: (1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow departure from the rule on strict compliance; and
(2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
team.80 In these exceptional cases, the seizures and custody over the confiscated items shall not be
rendered void and invalid.

Against the foregoing legal backdrop, the Court had exhaustively studied the records and is of the
considered view that the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti are compromised.

The buy-bust team failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, particularly as to the
presence of the three (3) witnesses immediately after seizure and confiscation of the illegal drugs.

In no uncertain words, Section 21 requires the apprehending team to "immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph [the seized illegal drugs] in the presence of the accused
xxx or his 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."

The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and
photographing of the drugs must be at the place of apprehension and/or seizure. If this is not
practicable, it may be done as soon as the apprehending team reaches the nearest police station or nearest
office.81

In all of these cases, the photographing and inventory are required to be done in the presence of any
elected public official and a representative from the media and the DOJ who shall be required to
sign an inventory and given copies thereof. By the same intent of the law behind the mandate that the
initial custody requirements be done "immediately after seizure and confiscation," the aforesaid witnesses
must already be physically present at the time of apprehension and seizure - a requirement that can easily
be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its very nature, a
planned activity. Simply put, the buy-bust team had enough time and opportunity to bring with them these
witnesses.

In other words, while the physical inventory and photographing is allowed to be done "at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizure," this does not dispense with the requirement of having the DOJ and media
representative and the elected public official to be physically present at the time of and at or near the
place of apprehension and seizure so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and
photographing of the seized drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation."82

The reason is simple, it is at the time of arrest or at the time of the drugs' "seizure and confiscation" that
the presence of the three (3) witnesses is most needed. It is their presence at that point that would
insulate against the police practice of planting evidence.83 In People v. Mendoza,84 the Court ruled:
xxx Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public
official during the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or
contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the
seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus
adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. xxx85 (Italics in the original)
In the present case, none of these three (3) witnesses under Section 21 were present at the time
the subject drugs were allegedly confiscated from Adobar. Upon the other hand, only two (2) of
the three (3) were summoned by the team and were actually present during the physical
inventory and photographing of the seized items.

The testimony of Punong Barangay Acenas, which was, in fact, offered by the prosecution for the sole
purpose of proving that he was present during the inventory and that he signed the inventory
receipt,86supports the conclusion that he arrived only after the subject drugs were already confiscated, thus:

[ATTORNEY ECHANO:]

Q But, you will admit that [when] the PDEA went inside the house, you
were not present?

A When I arrived at the area, all the agents were already in the second
floor of the house.

Q When did you receive the call from the PDEA agents?

A Immediately after the arrest [of Ga-a] and seizure.

Q How many minutes did it take you before you arrived?

 A About 15 minutes from our residence, Sir.

xxxx

[TRIAL COURT:]

Q In other words, Captain Acenas, when you arrived there, the

accused [Ga-a] was already arrested?

A Yes, Your Honor.

Q The items were already on top of the aparador?

A Yes, Your Honor.

Q Was the Inventory already prepared ready for your signature or the
Inventory was prepared when you were there already?

A When I arrived, they started the Inventory, Your

Honor.87 (Emphasis supplied)
To recall the prosecution's narrative, Ga-a was arrested after the buy-bust was made against Adobar, i.e.,
after the subject drugs were taken from him by IO1 Siglos. Clearly, Punong Barangay Acenas was
summoned only sometime after the attempted arrest of Adobar and the alleged confiscation of the subject
drugs from his person. According to Punong Barangay Acenas, he arrived at the scene about fifteen (15)
minutes from such call, when the agents were already settled on the second floor of Adobar's home, ready
for inventory. This is confirmed by IO3 Tablate who testified that he phoned in the witnesses only after
"clearing" the alleged crime scene, thus:

[PROSECUTOR VICENTE:]

xxxx

Q What did you do with the drugs on the table?

A After clearing, before I actually made the markings[,] we called

up the barangay captain or one of the members of the team,
the barangay captain, member from the media and also the
representative from the DOJ and upon their arrival it was the
time when I actually made the markings to the evidence.

xxxx

Q And then what else after marking, labelling the sachets of shabu and
the paraphernalia, what happened next, Mr. Witness?

A After the inventory was signed by the witnesses, upon arrival

of (sic) the office after the booking I also prepared a request for the
crime lab and then I myself was the one who delivered the evidence
to the crime lab.88 (Emphasis supplied)
Notably, while IO3 Tablate testified that all three (3) insulating witnesses came, observed and signed the
inventory, this testimony is contradicted by the records which reveal that only the signatures of Punong
Barangay Acenas and the media representative actually appear on the inventory document.89 In this regard
it should also be noted that only Punong Barangay Acenas was presented in court to testify.

Other than the above quoted testimony of IO3 Tablate, no sign of the presence of the DOJ representative
appears on record. In fact, the Affidavit90 dated May 10, 2011 of IO3 Tablate belies the presence of a DOJ
Representative even during the inventory, thus:
I, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER-3 ALEX M. TABLATE, xxx do hereby depose and say:

xxxx
That during the inventory of the seized items/evidence recovered, which I, IO-3 TABLATE myself
conducted in the very table itself where said items were found in plain view in the 2nd floor of the house of
the suspects, the same were witnessed by the Barangay Captain himself of Brgy. Camaman-an and
by a representative from the media through Magnum Radio.91 (Additional emphasis supplied)
To reiterate, the three (3) insulating witnesses must be present at the time of seizure of the drugs such that
they must be at or near the intended place of arrest so they can be ready to witness the inventory and
photographing of the seized items "immediately after seizure and confiscation." These witnesses must sign
the inventory and be given copies thereof. In the present case, from the evidence of the prosecution
itself, none of the witnesses were present during the seizure and confiscation of the subject
drugs. Moreover, only two (2) of them - the punong barangay and the media representative - witnessed
the photographing and signed the inventory.

On this note, considering that at the point of seizure, i.e., the first link in the "chain of custody,"
irregularities were already attendant, it becomes futile to prove the the rest of the links in the chain. Simply
put, since "planting" of the drugs was already made possible at the point of seizure because of the absence
of all three (3) insulating witnesses, proving the chain after such point merely proves the chain of custody of
planted drugs.

Adobar's flight serves as a waiver of his right to be present during the initial custody requirements of
Section 21 of RA 9165, but does not excuse compliance by the buy-bust team with the presence of the three
(3) insulating witnesses therein.

Apart from the three (3) insulating witnesses, Section 21 requires that the physical inventory and
photographing of the seized drugs by the apprehending team immediately after confiscation and seizure be
likewise made in the presence of, "the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel."92

The question arises: what if the person from whom the drugs were seized escaped? This obtains in the
present case. From the prosecution's narration, Adobar successfully evaded arrest despite the efforts of the
buybust team to apprehend him.93 He remained at large until his subsequent apprehension on February 13,
2012 via an alias warrant of arrest.

If the story of the prosecution is to be believed, the escape of accused Adobar serves as a waiver of his right
to be present during the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs allegedly seized from him. The
prosecution cannot be burdened by the accused's escape provided that reasonable efforts were made
to apprehend him, as what appears in the present case. The buy-bust team cannot be reasonably
expected to secure the presence of the accused's representative or counsel at the time of confiscation and
during the buy-bust operation, considering the clandestine nature of such operations. In the same vein,
after such escape, it should be difficult, if not impossible, for the buy-bust team to find a counsel or
representative for the accused before the initial custody requirements which Section 21 mandates to be
performed "immediately after" the confiscation.

As such, the prosecution is excused from complying with the requirement of Section 21 as to the presence
of the accused during the initial custody requirements, i.e., physical inventory and photographing of the
seized drugs. However, it is not excused as to the presence of the three (3) insulating witnesses, i.e., the
DOJ and media representative and elected public official. The buy-bust team must still secure the presence
of these insulating witnesses, and the prosecution must still prove such presence, not only during the
inventory and photographing but likewise at the time of and at or near the intended place of confiscation
and seizure of the subject drugs.

In the same vein, the buy-bust team need not secure the presence of the accused during the marking of the
seized drugs as his escape serves as a waiver of his right to witness the same. As will be extensively
discussed below, although Section 21 is silent as to the matter of marking of seized drugs,
jurisprudence94 teaches that consistency with the chain of custody rule requires the same to be done in the
presence of the accused.

The prosecution failed to trigger the saving clause under the IRR of RA 9165. Its noncompliance with Section
21 cannot be excused; the identity of the corpus delicti is not established.

To be sure, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure under Section 21 is required as a rule.95 The
exception to this rule is found in the saving clause under Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA
916596 which requires the following: (1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow departure from the rule
on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending team.97

If these two (2) requisites are present and the saving clause is successfully triggered, the confiscated items
shall not be rendered void and invalid. This allows the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus
delicti despite failure of the apprehending team to physically inventory and photograph the drugs at the
place of arrest and/or to have the DOJ and media representative and elected public official witness the
same.

On the first element, it has been emphasized that the prosecution must first recognize any lapses on the
part of the apprehending officers and thereafter explain the cited justifiable grounds.98 Moreover, the
justifiable explanation given must be credible.99 Breaches of the procedure contained in Section 21
committed by the police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a
finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity and evidentiary value of
the corpus delicti had been compromised.100

Hence, to successfully trigger the saving clause, the prosecution must satisfy its two-pronged
requirement: first, acknowledge and credibly justify the non-compliance, and second, show that
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were properly preserved. The Court held
in Valencia v. People:101
Although the Court has ruled that non-compliance with the directives of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case, the prosecution must still prove that (a) there is a
justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
were properly preserved. Further, the non-compliance with the procedures must be justified by the State's
agents themselves. The arresting officers are under obligation, should they be unable to comply with the
procedures laid down under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to explain why the procedure was not
followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law
would merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own
convenience.102
In this case, the prosecution did not acknowledge the lapses, much less offer a credible and justifiable
ground for the failure of the buy-bust team to comply with Section 21. No explanation was advanced as to
why none of the insulating witnesses was present at the time of seizure and confiscation of the subject
illegal drugs. Neither do the records show any justification as to why no DOJ representative was secured to
witness the photographing and physical inventory of the seized drugs. Worse, the prosecution did not even
concede such lapses. The affidavit of IO3 Tablate shows the indifference of the prosecution on its failure to
comply with Section 21, thus:
That IO-1 SIGLOS turned over to me, IO-3 TABLATE the one (1) piece of heat-sealed transparent sachet
containing white crystalline substance also suspected to be shabu, which was the subject of the buybust
earlier transacted.

That during the inventory of the seized items/evidence recovered, which I, IO-3 TABLATE myself conducted
in the very table itself where said items were found in plain view in the 2nd floor of the house of the
suspects, the same were witnessed by the Barangay Captain himself of Brgy. Camaman-an and by a
representative from the media through Magnum Radio.

That at the PDEA Regional Office-10, the arrested female suspect formally identified herself as Jennifer C.
Ga-a, 22 years old, single and a resident of Ramonal Village, Brgy. Camaman-an, Cagayan de Oro City
while the other suspect who was able to elude arrest despite earnest effort to apprehend him was formally
identified as Aquilo Adobar, 48 years old, married and a resident of the same barangay. The latter suspect
is a targetlisted personality as per PDEA National Drugs Information System (NDIS).103 (Emphasis in the
original)
Hence, considering the prosecution neither acknowledged nor explained its noncompliance with Section 21,
the first prong was not satisfied, thus leading to the inevitable conclusion that the saving clause was not
triggered. Accordingly, there is no point anymore in determining if the second prong had been satisfied
- i.e., proving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs.

To be sure, from the records, outside the non-compliance with Section 21, the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized illegal drugs are heavily tainted. The second prong, even if the Court allows proof of such
despite failure to prove the first prong, seems difficult if not impossible to establish in light of the serious
irregularities in the transfer of custody of the seized illegal drugs.
Proving the second prong of the saving clause - the integrity of the seized illegal drugs - despite non-
compliance with Section 21 requires establishing the four links in the chain of custody: First, the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second,
the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court.104

In the present case, there was failure to mark the seized illegal drugs immediately after confiscation due to
the palpable gap between the confiscation of the drugs to its subsequent marking which the prosecution
utterly failed to explain.

Marking is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the
items after they have been seized. In People v. Beran,105 the Court held that while the matter of marking of
the seized illegal drugs in warrantless seizures is not expressly specified in Section 21, consistency with
the chain of custody rule requires that such marking should be done (1) in the presence of the
apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon confiscation, to wit:
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of
"marking" of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension
is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the
police station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that
the "marking" of the seized items-to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are
eventually the ones offered in evidence-should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator
(2) immediately upon confiscation. This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from
dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits
based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or theft. xxx106 (Emphasis in
the original)
It is vital that the seized contrabands are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the
specimens will use the markings as reference. The Court has held:
Crucial in proving [the] chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items
immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the
custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband[s] are immediately marked because
succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence
serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the
time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings,
obviating[,] switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.

Long before Congress passed RA 9165, this Court has consistently held that failure of the
authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of
the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties,
the doctrinal fallback of every drug-related prosecution.107 (Additional emphasis supplied)
In the present case, a considerable period of time intervened between the confiscation of the subject drugs
and its subsequent marking - which was unaccounted for by the prosecution. This gaping hiatus is brought
about by the failure of the poseur buyer, IO1 Siglos, to credibly account for her whereabouts and the
handling of the subject drugs from the time she confiscated the same from Adobar to the time she turned it
over to IO3 Tablate for marking. The marked inconsistencies in her testimonies taken on April 23, 2012 and
November 6, 2012 fail the test of credibility.

On April 23, 2012, IO1 Siglos testified that when her colleagues responded to the scene, she inspected the
area with them and then, without much delay, followed IO3 Tablate upstairs for the marking, thus:

[PROSECUTOR VICENTE:]

xxxx
 Q And then after you made that pre-arranged signal of rubbing your
back head, what happened?

A After a few minutes[,] the back up team rushed up.

Q What happened next?

A And then when they arrived we checked the area and then
after we checked the area I followed them and then I went
up stairs to give the buy-bust evidence to the arresting
officer, Sir.

xxxx

Q You said that after you touched your head the arresting officer
arrived, and then Tablate went upstairs?

A Yes, Sir.

Q How many minutes after Tablate went upstairs, how many

minutes you followed Tablate?

A About 3-4 minutes, Sir.108 (Emphasis supplied)

This is in contrast to her testimony on November 6, 2012 where she stated under oath that when the back-
up team arrived, she proceeded to the team's service vehicle, about 10-15 meters away, and therein waited
for a considerable time while the back-up team chased after Adobar and searched the premises. She only
went back to the house and handed the subject drugs to IO3 Tablate when it was time for the physical
inventory, thus:
[PROSECUTOR VICENTE:]

xxxx

Q After you rubbed the back part of your head, what happened next?

A I noticed that the operatives rushed up to the area, Sir.

xxxx

Q So[,] when the operatives arrived, what did Aquillo (sic) Adobar do?

A He went upstairs, Sir.

Q He run?

A Yes, Sir.

Q And he was chased by the operatives?

A Yes, Sir.
xxxx

Q What did you do?

A I went outside going to our service vehicle, Sir.

Q How far was the service vehicle parked from the house?

A More or less 10-15 meters, Sir.

xxxx

Q Why you did not go with them when they chased the accused?

A Because my tasked (sic) is only a [poseur] buyer, Sir.

Q You said that the accused handed to you the sachet of shabu, what
did you do with it?

A I handed to the arresting officer, IO3 Tablate during the inventory,

Sir.
 Q But you said you went to the vehicle?

A Yes, Sir.

Q You waited there?

A Yes, Sir.

Q And then, when did your team conduct an inventory?

A After the searched (sic), Sir.

Q So[,] after you went to the vehicle, you went back to the
house?

A Yes, Sir.109 (Emphasis supplied)

The significance of this contradiction in IO1 Siglos' testimony cannot be overemphasized. Being the first
custodian in the chain and having held onto the then unmarked seized drugs for a considerable lapse of
time, IO1 Siglos must clearly and convincingly account for her handling and care of the subject drugs before
turning them over to IO3 Tablate for marking. In this, she failed, thus, effectively creating an obvious but
unexplained break in the chain. Hence, assuming that the illegal drugs which went into the chain are
actually the same drugs seized from Adobar's person, i.e., assuming the same were not planted at the point
of seizure, there remains that great possibility of switching while the same were in IO1 Siglos' custody.

The foregoing conflicting narrations, seemingly trivial when viewed in isolation, cast very serious doubts on
the veracity of the prosecution's overall narrative when juxtaposed against the procedural lapses of the buy-
bust team and its abject failure to justify said lapses.

Courts must be extra vigilant in trying drugs cases.

Unfortunately, the CA and the trial court glossed over these obvious irregularities which attended the
present buy-bust operation and the resulting confiscation of the subject drugs.

The CA, while seemingly recognizing the lapses in observing Section 21,110 simply dismissed the same
"because it was shown by the prosecution that the integrity and evidentiary value of the specimens were
properly preserved by the buy-bust team."111 In other words, the CA excused the failure of the buy-bust
team to comply with Section 21 on the basis of the second prong of the saving clause (that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the subject drugs are established) but ignoring altogether the first prong (absence
of justifiable reasons for the procedural lapses). The CA justifies its decision to excuse this non-
observance of Section 21 by ruling that only substantial adherence thereto is required.112

This position taken by the CA is mistaken. To reiterate, the procedure enshrined in Section 21 is a
matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality.113Substantive
law requires strict observance of these procedural safeguards.114 Courts, in resolving drugs cases must keep
in mind this mandate and the peculiar nature of buy-bust operations being susceptible to police abuse as
discussed by the Court, thus:
xxx a buy-bust operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the
law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion. In People
v. Tan, this Court itself recognized that by the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for
entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana
or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy
that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. xxx115 (Italics in the original)
For this, the Court has instructed lower courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying drugs cases "lest an
innocent person be made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses."116 The presumption
that regular duty was performed by the arresting officers simply cannot prevail over the presumption of
innocence granted to the accused by the Constitution. It is thus incumbent upon the prosecution to prove
that the accused is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt.117

At this point, it is well to emphasize that this case involves a meager 0.03 gram of shabu. Courts must
employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in
evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs as they can be readily planted and tampered
with.118 Consistent with this, in People v. Segundo119 involving the same amount of drugs as the case at
hand (0.03 gram), the Court emphasized the extra caution that law enforcers must observe in preserving
the integrity of small amounts of seized drugs, thus:
To sum, "[l]aw enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the
chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia." Thus, "[t]his is especially
true when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the
accused."

Although the miniscule quantity of confiscated illicit drugs is solely by itself not a reason for acquittal, this
instance accentuates the importance of conformity to Section 21 that the law enforcers in this case
miserably failed to do so. If initially there were already significant lapses on the marking, inventory, and
photographing of the alleged seized items, a doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti concomittantly
exists. xxx120(Emphasis supplied)
Adobar's defense of denial is concededly weak and uncorroborated. This weakness, however, does not add
strength to the prosecution's case as the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight.
Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the conviction of an accused must rest not on the weakness
of the defense but on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution.121

Based on the foregoing and following the Court's precedents as discussed above, the Court is constrained to
reverse Adobar's conviction.

The prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime due to the serious lapses in observing Section
21 of RA 9165 and the concomitant failure to trigger the saving clause. Anent the latter point, the
prosecution utterly failed to acknowledge and credibly justify its procedural lapses and was unable to prove
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. Adobar's innocence, as presumed and protected by
the Constitution, must stand in light of the reasonable doubt on his guilt.

To conclude, the Court issues anew a reminder: The prosecution arm of the government has the duty to
prove, beyond reasonable doubt, each and every element of the crime charged. In illegal drugs cases, this
includes proving faithful compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, being fundamental to establishing the
element of corpus delicti. In the course of proving such compliance before the trial courts,
prosecutors must have the initiative to not only acknowledge, but also justify, any perceived
deviations from the procedural requirements of Section 21.122

As no less than the liberty of an accused is at stake, appellate courts, this Court included, must,
in turn, sift the records to determine if, indeed, the apprehending team observed Section 21 and
if not, if the same is justified under the circumstances. This, regardless if issues thereon were ever
raised or threshed out in the lower court/s, consistent with the doctrine that appeal in criminal cases throws
the whole case open for review and the appellate court must correct errors in the appealed judgment
whether they are assigned or not.123 If, from such full examination of the records, there appears unjustified
failure to comply with Section 21, it becomes the appellate court's bounded duty to acquit the accused, and
perforce, overturn a conviction.124

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated July 31, 2015 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR HC No.
01192-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Aquila "Payat" Adobar is
hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered
immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, for immediate
implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court, within five (5)
days from receipt of this Decision, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director
General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for his information.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
Peralta, J., Please see seperate concurring opinion.