SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 251919. May 12, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILFREDO

AREOLA, JR. y CASICA ALIAS "MOKONG", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 12 May 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251919 (People of the Philippines v. Wilfredo Areola,
Jr. y Casica alias "Mokong"). — We acquit.
Accused-appellant Wilfredo Areola, Jr. y Casica alias "Mokong" was
charged with illegal sale of 0.210 gram 1 and illegal possession of 0.206 and
0.086 gram 2 of shabu , allegedly committed on October 3, 2015. The
governing law is Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), as amended by Republic
Act No. 10640 (RA 10640). 3
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the drug
itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution must,
therefore, prove that the dangerous drug seized from the accused is the
same substance eventually offered in court. 4 For this purpose, Section 21, 5
Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640 prescribe the standard in
preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases. This makes up the chain of
custody rule.
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must
account for each link in its chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking 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 by the
forensic chemist to the court. 6
The conduct of physical inventory, which includes the marking of the
items by the seizing police officers 7 and photographing of the seized items,
must be done immediately after seizure and confiscation 8 and in the
presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel and the
required witnesses to ensure that they are the same items which enter the
chain of custody. 9
Here, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody.
First, the seized illegal drugs were not immediately marked after
confiscation. The prosecution admitted about thirty (30) minutes had elapsed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 from the time the illegal drugs were confiscated before the same were
marked. While the prosecution claimed that the police officers were waiting
for the arrival of the witnesses during the said thirty-minute interval, it did
not give a credible account on the whereabouts and handling of the subject
drugs in the interim. Neither did it offer any valid justification why they had
to delay the marking and wait for the witnesses to arrive.
Marking is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of
his initials and signature on the items after they have been seized. 10 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. This step
initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and
concocted searches on one hand, and of protecting the apprehending
officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section
29 and on allegations of robbery or theft, on the other. 11
The immediate marking of the seized illegal drugs is vital because
succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. 12
The marking obviates switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence as
it separates 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. Failure 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. 13
In People v. Ramos , 14 the police officers admitted that they failed to
mark the seized drugs immediately after confiscation and they waited until
they arrived at the police station, around twenty (20) minutes away from the
scene of the buy-bust operation, before they marked the seized items. One
officer explained that the belated marking was due to their failure to bring
marking pens, while the other said that they could not immediately mark the
items because the required witnesses were not yet present then. The Court
ruled that either explanation was not sufficient to justify their non-
compliance with the first step of the mandatory rules on custody, thus:
The witnesses' absence at the time of seizure is not a justifiable
ground for not immediately marking the items, since they should
have, at the onset, been present or near the place of seizure.
Since the law requires the apprehending team to conduct the
inventory in front of the required witnesses and immediately after
seizure, this necessarily means that, in buy-bust operations, the
required witnesses must be present at the time of seizure.
xxx xxx xxx
Police officers are given time to prepare for a buy-bust
operation and make necessary arrangements beforehand, fully aware
of the strict procedure to follow under Section 21 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Assuming that the
apprehending team in this case really could not have immediately
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 marked the seized drugs because they had no marker or because the
required witnesses were absent, both circumstances were entirely of
their own making. If these rendered the immediate marking
impracticable, such impracticability was their fault and cannot be
used as an excuse to not immediately mark the items. If anything, the
lack of foresight that led to these circumstances shows that the team
did not exert genuine effort to comply with the chain of custody rule.
Second, the prosecution was silent as to what happened to the
confiscated drugs after the police officers delivered them to the crime
laboratory. The officer or custodian, who received the seized drugs from PO1
Mike Malubay, was not presented to testify on how he handled and
preserved the integrity of the items he received until they got examined by
the forensic chemist.
I n People v. Burdeos , 15 where the prosecution failed to show how
the specimen was handled while under the custody of the officer who
received it and how the same was subsequently turned over to the forensic
chemist who conducted the examination, the Court declared that such
glaring gap in the chain of custody tainted the integrity of the corpus delicti.
Third, there is no evidence showing how the forensic chemist handled
the illegal drugs from the time they were turned over to her up to their
presentation in court. There was, therefore, no certainty that the integrity of
the corpus delicti was properly preserved. 16
In People v. Baltazar , 17 the Court acquitted the accused for lack of
evidence on how the illegal drugs were brought to court. The prosecution
failed to show how the alleged seized items were stored after they were
examined by the forensic chemist, who handled the specimens after
examination, and where the same were kept until they were retrieved and
presented in court.
In view of the foregoing procedural lapses in the chain of custody, the
identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti cannot be
deemed to have been preserved.
True, RA 9165 contains a saving clause allowing liberality whenever
there are compelling reasons to otherwise warrant deviation from the
established procedures so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved. The saving clause, however, applies
only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter
cited justifiable grounds. 18
Here, the Court cannot apply such liberality as there is no occasion for
the proviso "as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved," to even come into play. The deviation from
the procedures mandated under RA 9165, as amended was not
acknowledged, much less adequately explained.
Where there was non-compliance with the requirements set forth in
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended as in this case, there can be no
presumption that the official duties have been regularly performed by the
police officers. 19 The presumption of regularity cannot preponderate over
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 20 Since the
prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, accused-
appellant's acquittal must perforce follow.
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated
November 15, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10362 is
REVERSED. Accused-appellant Wilfredo Areola, Jr. y Casica alias "Mokong" is
ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos. T-6203 and T-6204. The Director of the
Bureau of Corrections is ordered to a) immediately release Wilfredo Areola,
Jr. y Casica alias "Mokong" from custody unless he is being held for some
other lawful cause; and b) submit his or her report on the action taken within
five (5) days from notice. Let an entry of final judgment be issued
immediately.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez., J., designated additional member per
Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON

Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. CA rollo, p. 76. Information for Criminal Case No. T-6203, as quoted in RTC's
Decision dated November 14, 2017, viz.:

Criminal Case No. T-6203

That on or about the 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of October 3, 2015 at Brgy.
Amistad, municipality of Tayug, province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"SHABU," weighing 0.210, marked as "MMM", a dangerous drug, in
[exchange of] one piece of five hundred peso (Php500.00) bill with serial
number MJ216686 and which [sic ] marked as "AAAD".

CONTRARY to Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as

"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

2. Id. at 77. Information for Criminal Case No. T-6204, as quoted in RTC's Decision
dated November 14, 2017, viz.:
Criminal Case No. T-6204

That on or about the 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of October 3, 2015 at Brgy.
Amistad, municipality of Tayug, province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the elements of PNP-Tayug,
Pangasinan conducted a [buy-bust] operation against the above-named
accused and after body search, the above-named accused, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and
custody two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet [sic ] containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "SHABU," a dangerous drug, weighing
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 0.206 gram and 0.086 gram, which [sic ] marked as "MMM1" and "MMM2",
respectively.
CONTRARY to Sec. 11, Art. II of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
3. An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government,
Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," approved on
July 15, 2014.
4. People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 542 (2017).
5. SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment
so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the
seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected
public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That
noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
6. People v. Dela Torre , G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019; People v. Leano, G.R. No.
246461, July 28, 2020.

7. People v. Lumaya , 827 Phil. 473, 489 (2018); People v. Salvador, 726 Phil. 389,
406 (2014).

8. See People v. Doctolero, Jr., G.R. No. 243940, August 20, 2019; Barayuga v.
People, G.R. No. 248382, July 28, 2020.
9. People v. Ramirez , 823 Phil. 1215, 1225 (2018) citing People v. Sanchez, 590
Phil. 214, 241 (2008).
10. People v. Adobar, 832 Phil. 731, 763 (2018).

11. See People v. Beran, 724 Phil. 788, 819-820 (2014), citing People v. Sanchez,
590 Phil. 214 (2008).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 12. People v. Adobar, supra at 764.

13. People v. Umipang , 686 Phil. 1024, 1049-1050 (2012).

14. G.R. No. 225325, August 28, 2019.
15. See G.R. No. 218434, July 17, 2019.

16. See People v. Diamante , G.R. No. 231980, October 9, 2019.

17. See G.R. No. 229037, July 29, 2019.

18. People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1038 (2017).

19. People v. Balibay, et al., 742 Phil. 746, 757 (2014).
20. Largo v. People, G.R. No. 201293, June 19, 2019.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com