G.R. No.

190749               April 25, 2012

VALENTIN ZAFRA y DECHOSA and EROLL MARCELINO y REYES, Petitioners,

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

For review before this Court is the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31713 dated 30 October 2009,1 affirming
the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76, Malolos, Bulacan,2 which found petitioners Valentin Zafra y Dechosa (Zafra)
and Eroll Marcelino y Reyes (Marcelino) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Possession of Dangerous Drugs in violation of Section 11,
Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and imposing on each of them the penalty
of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as the minimum term, to thirteen (13) years as maximum, and of fine of Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00).

The Facts

The prosecution charged Zafra and Marcelino with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No. 91653 before the RTC of Bulacan under
the Information below:

That on or about the 12th day of June, 2003, in the municipality of Balagtas, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have in their possession and control dangerous drug consisting of two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.0614 gram, in conspiracy with one another.5

The prosecution’s lone witness, SPO46 Apolinario Mendoza (SPO4 Mendoza), Chief of the Investigation and Drug Enforcement Unit of
the Philippine National Police of Balagtas, Bulacan, testified that on 12 January 2003, at around 4:30 in the afternoon, he conducted
surveillance in front of a sari-sari store at the corner of Miraflor Subdivision and P. Castro Street in Balagtas, Bulacan, due to reported
drug trafficking in the area. SPO4 Mendoza found there the group of Zafra, Marcelino, and a certain Marlon Daluz (Daluz) standing and
facing each other.7 In that position, he saw Zafra and Marcelino holding shabu, while Daluz was holding an aluminum foil and a
disposable lighter.8 Seeing this illegal activity, SPO4 Mendoza single-handedly apprehended them. He grabbed the shabu from the
hands of Zafra and Marcelino, and confiscated the drug paraphernalia from Daluz. Then, he ordered the three to lie down; he frisked
them. Boarding a tricycle, he brought them to the Balagtas Police Station,9 where he personally marked the confiscated two (2) sachets
of shabu, one with VSD, the initials of Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and the other with EMR, the initials of Eroll Marcelino y Reyes.10

On the following day, 13 June 2003, SPO4 Mendoza brought the accused and the items to the crime laboratory for urine sampling and
laboratory examination, respectively.11 The test of the items resulted to positive presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride.12

The RTC, Branch 76, Malolos, Bulacan, in a decision dated 11 June 2008, convicted Zafra and Marcelino for the crime of possession of
shabu:

WHEREFORE, finding guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 2297-M-2003, accused VALENTIN ZAFRA y
DECHOSA and accused EROLL MARCELINO y REYES are hereby CONVICTED for possession of sachets of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, with a weight of 0.31 gram and 0.30 gram, respectively, which are classified as dangerous
drugs in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002" and are each SENTENCED to suffer the IMPRISONMENT of, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, TWELVE (12) YEARS
AND ONE DAY, AS THE MINIMUM TERM, TO THIRTEEN (13) YEARS, AS THE MAXIMUM TERM, and to pay the FINE of THREE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (₱300,000.00).13

Daluz, on the other hand, who was charged of possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Section 12 of RA No. 9165 pleaded
guilty to the charge and was released after serving his sentence of eight (8) months.14

Zafra and Marcelino appealed; but the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Decision:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed 11 June 2008 Decision
of the Court a quo STANDS.15

Hence, this appeal on the following grounds: first, the arrest was unlawful; second, the prohibited drugs are inadmissible in evidence;
third, Section 21 of RA No. 9165 was not complied with; and, finally, the prosecution failed to prove petitioners’ guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

The Court’s Ruling

We resolve to ACQUIT petitioners Zafra and Marcelino on the following grounds:

First, the prosecution’s lone witness, SPO4 Mendoza,16 testified that, from a distance, he saw Zafra and Marcelino holding shabu by
their bare hands, respectively, while Daluz was holding an aluminum foil and a disposable lighter.17 Seeing this illegal activity, he single-
handedly apprehended them.18 He grabbed the shabu from the hands of Zafra and Marcelino, and confiscated the drug paraphernalia
from Daluz.

In his affidavit, however, SPO4 Mendoza stated, that:

Na, nitong nakaraang Hunyo 12, 2003 ng 4:30 ng hapon humigit kumulang, sa P. Casto St., Barangay Borol-1, Balagtas Bulacan,
habang ako ay nagsasagawa ng surveillance sa Suspected Drug Pusher sa nasabing lugar ay aking nakita ang tatlo (3) kalalakihan na
nakatalikod sa isang corner ng tindahan sa P. Castro St., na nakilala ko na sina Valentine D. Zafra @ Val, Eroll R. Marcelino @ Eroll, at
Marlon B. Daluz @ Marlon na pawang mga residente ng Borol-1, Balagtas, Bulacan.

Na, ako ay lumapit na naglalakad kina Valentine Zafra, Errol Marcelino at Marlon Daluz at sa aking paglapit sa kanilang tatlo ay aking
nakita at naaktuhang inabot ni Valentine Zafra kay Eroll Marcelino ang isang (1) plastic sachet ng shabu may timbang na 0.30 grams,
at isa pang plastic sachet ng shabu na si Marlon Daluz ay hawak ang isang disposable lighter at 2 piraso ng aluminum foil na inaayos
na nilalagyan ng lupi at 7 piraso ng empty plastic sachet. (Emphasis supplied)19
xxxx

On cross examination, SPO4 Mendoza testified that it was Zafra and not Daluz, who was holding the aluminum foil (contrary to his
earlier testimony that Zafra was holding shabu);20 that Daluz (whom he claimed during the direct examination to be holding the
aluminum foil) and Marcelino were holding handkerchiefs and on top of them were shabu;21 When the defense confronted SPO4
Mendoza about the inconsistency, he told the court that his version during his direct testimony was the correct one.22

While, it is hornbook doctrine that the evaluation of the trial court on the credibility of the witness and the testimony is entitled to great
weight and is generally not disturbed upon appeal,23 such rule does not apply when the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or
misapplied any fact of weight or substance.24 In the instant case, these circumstances are present, that, when properly appreciated,
would warrant the acquittal of petitioners.

Certainly, SPO4 Mendoza’s credibility has to be thoroughly looked into, being the only witness in this case. While in his affidavit, SPO4
Mendoza claimed that he saw the sachet of shabu (0.30 gram) because Zafra was in the act of handing it to Marcelino, his testimony
during the direct examination reveals another version, that is, from a distance, he saw Zafra and Marcelino holding shabu, respectively,
hence, he approached them from behind and confiscated the shabu from both of them and the paraphernalia from Daluz. How he saw
a 0.30 gram of shabu from a distance in a busy street, baffles this Court. Asked, however, on cross examination, who among the three
were holding the shabu and drug paraphernalia, SPO4 Mendoza failed to be consistent with his earlier testimony and pointed to Daluz
as the one holding shabu with a handkerchief in his hand and Zafra as the one in possession of drug paraphernalia. These
inconsistencies are not minor ones, and, certainly, not among those which strengthens the credibility of a witness. Possession of drug
paraphernalia vis-à-vis shabu, are two different offenses under RA No. 9165. That Zafra was holding drug paraphernalia and not shabu
is material to this case, to the accusation against him, and to his defense.

Second, a reading of the RTC decision on this matter reveals that the conviction was arrived at upon reliance on the presumption of
regularity in the performance of Mendoza’s official duty.25

It is noteworthy, however, that presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by its lonesome overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence.26 Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and nothing else can eclipse the hypothesis of
guiltlessness. And this burden is met not by bestowing distrust on the innocence of the accused but by obliterating all doubts as to his
culpability.27

Third, SPO4 Mendoza was the lone arresting officer, who brought the petitioners to the police station,28 who himself marked the
confiscated pieces of evidence sans witnesses, photographs, media, and in the absence of the petitioners. His colleagues were
nowhere.29 And, worse, he was the same person who took custody of the same pieces of evidence, then, brought them on his own to
the crime laboratory for testing.30 No inventory was ever done;31 no inventory was presented in court.

The solo performance by SPO4 Mendoza of all the acts necessary for the prosecution of the offense is unexplained and puts the proof
of corpus delicti, which is the illegal object itself in serious doubt. No definite answer can be established regarding the question as to
who possessed what at the time of the alleged apprehension. More significantly, we are left in doubt whether not the two sachets
of shabu allegedly seized from the petitioners were the very same objects offered in court as the corpus delicti.

Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be
established with moral certainty.32 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.33 Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be
established beyond doubt.34 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.35 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.36 The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.37

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA No. 9165 reads:

(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.

Section 21(a) Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165 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; 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.

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.38 It would include testimony about every
link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who
touched the exhibit would 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.39 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.40

The records readily raise significant doubts as to the identity of the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from Zafra and Marcelino. SPO4
Mendoza’s claim that the two sachets of shabu presented in court were the same ones confiscated from the petitioners, cannot be
taken at its face value, solely on the presumption of regularity of one’s performance of duty. SPO4 Mendoza blatantly broke all the rules
established by law to safeguard the identity of a corpus delicti. There was even no mention about the details of the laboratory
examination of the allegedly seized drugs. To allow this to happen is to abandon everything that has been said about the necessity of
proving an unbroken chain of custody. SPO4 Mendoza cannot alone satisfy the requirements in RA No. 9165 which is anchored on,
expressly, the participation of several personalities and the execution of specified documents.

And, while jurisprudence has refined the enumerated duties of an apprehending officer in a drug case and has thus described the
equivalent requirements for a proper chain of custody of the corpus delicti, still, the case at bar cannot pass the constitutional
requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

We reiterate, that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs should be
observed. In People v. Salonga,41 we acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated
items. We also reversed a conviction in People v. Gutierrez,42 for the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the
seized items without justifiable grounds. People v. Cantalejo43 also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was
ever made by the police.

We reached the same conclusions in the recent cases of People v. Capuno,44 People v. Lorena,45 and People v. Martinez.46

The present petition is the sum total of all the violations committed in the cases cited above.

Lest the chain of custody rule be misunderstood, we reiterate that non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements does
not necessarily render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid; the seizure may still be held valid, provided that (a) there is
a justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are shown to have been
properly preserved.47 These conditions, however, were not met in the present case as the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any
justification for the failure of SPO4 Mendoza to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized items.1âwphi1 As we held
in People v. De Guzman,48 the failure to follow the procedure mandated under RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations must be adequately explained. The justifiable ground for the non-compliance must be proven as a fact. The Court cannot
presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

In our constitutional system, basic and elementary is the presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused lies on the
prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.49 The rule is invariable
whatever may be the reputation of the accused, for the law presumes his innocence unless and until the contrary is shown.50 In dubio
pro reo.51 When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of
right.52

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 October 2009 in
CA-G.R. CR No. 31713. Petitioners Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and Eroll Marcelino y Reyes are hereby ACQUITTED for the failure of the
prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless they are
confined for another lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this
Decision.

SO ORDERED.