G.R. No. 209078.

September 04, 2019 ]

JOSEPH VILLASANA Y CABAHUG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

Evidence seized as a result of an illegal warrantless arrest cannot be used against an

accused pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution. Even if the seizure was
reasonable, the arresting officers' unjustified noncompliance with the legal safeguards
under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 compromises the integrity of the confiscated
drug. This creates reasonable doubt on the conviction of the accused for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs.

This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assailing the Decision2[2] of the
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision[3] convicting Joseph
Villasana y Cabahug (Villasana) of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The Court of
Appeals, in a subsequent Resolution,[4] denied his Motion for Reconsideration.

In an Information filed on January 6, 2005, Villasana was charged with violation of

Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002, for illegal possession of "one (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag
containing 0.15 gram of white crystalline substance Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
(Shabu)[.]"[5]

On arraignment, Villasana pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.[6]

During pre-trial, the prosecution and defense stipulated on the following:

1. The jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused and the offense;

2. The identity of the accused;

3. That Police Officer 2 Ronald Sanchez (PO2 Sanchez) is the officer-on-case who
received the evidence from PO3 Louie Martinez (PO3 Martinez), the arresting
officer;

4. That PO2 Sanchez prepared the letter-request for laboratory examination;

 5. That the letter-request, along with the evidence, was turned over to PO3 Martinez
for delivery to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory;

6. That PO3 Martinez delivered the specimen together with the letter-request for
laboratory examination to the Crime Laboratory, Sangandaan, Caloocan City;

7. That the January 5, 2005 letter-request for laboratory examination was received by
the office of Police Inspector Albert Arturo (Inspector Arturo) from the Station
Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Unit, Valenzuela City Police Station, along
with a small plastic evidence bag marked as SAID-SOU/VCPS 04-12-05
containing one (1) piece of small plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance marked as "JCV";

8. That after the qualitative examination, Inspector Arturo found that the contents of
the plastic sachet yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, as
stated in Physical Sciences Report No. D-006-05;

9. That Inspector Arturo is a duly qualified forensic chemist of the Northern Police
District Crime Laboratory Office, Caloocan City Police Station; and

10. That Inspector Arturo has no personal knowledge of the source of the evidence
and the circumstances surrounding the confiscation/custody and safekeeping of the
subject evidence.[7]

The prosecution presented PO3 Martinez as its first witness. He alleged the following:

At around 7:00 p.m. on January 4, 2005, while PO3 Martinez was on duty at the Station
Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Unit of the Valenzuela City Police Station, a
confidential informant arrived and reported that Jojo Villasana and Nida Villasana were
rampantly selling drugs along Hustisya Street, Marulas, Valenzuela City. Thus, a team
headed by Police Inspector Muammar A. Mukaram (Inspector Mukaram) with SPO1
Arquillo, PO3 Soriano, PO3 Britana, PO2 Sanchez, PO3 Martinez, PO2 Magno, PO2
Malinao, PO2 Salvidar, and PO1 Pajares as members, was at once formed to conduct
surveillance operations.[8]

At about 11:30 p.m. that day, the team proceeded to the target area on board three (3)
vehicles: a car, a Revo van, and a motorcycle.[9] PO3 Martinez, PO3 Soriano, and PO2
Magno parked on Hustisya Street and waited inside the van. Around 10 to 15 minutes
later, they saw, through the van's tinted front windshield,[10] Villasana coming out of an
alley around five (5) to six (6) meters away.[11] He was holding a plastic sachet while
talking to a woman.[12] The police officers approached him discreetly.[13]

As he reached Villasana, PO3 Martinez held his hand and introduced himself as a police
officer.[14] He told Villasana not to throw the plastic sachet, to which the latter
replied, "panggamit ko lang to"[15] After verifying that Villasana was indeed holding
shabu, PO3 Martinez arrested him and confiscated the sachet.[16] The woman, however,
was able to escape.[17]

Villasana and the seized drug were brought to the Marulas Barangay Hall, where an
inventory was made.[18] The inventory was signed by Kagawad Jose Mendez (Kagawad
Mendez) and a certain Artemus Latoc (Latoc),[19] a former official.[20] PO3 Martinez
marked the confiscated item with Villasana's initials, "JCV," in the "office."[21] Then, he
brought Villasana and the seized specimen to the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory in Caloocan City for drug testing and laboratory examination.[22]

After PO3 Martinez's testimony, the prosecution and defense agreed to dispense with the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses PO2 Sanchez, Inspector Mukaram, and Police
Superintendent Caday.[23]

For the defense,[24] Villasana testified that at around 8:00 p.m. on January 4, 2005,
Villasana was having a conversation with Sabel and Diane inside a jeepney, which was
then parked in front of his house in Karuhatan, Valenzuela City.[25] Not far from them, a
group of police officers arrived and accosted several persons that were playing cara y
cruz.[26] One (1) of the police officers, PO2 Sanchez, called Villasana to come out.[27] He
did as asked, but as he alighted from the jeepney, PO2 Magno grabbed him by the waist
and forced him to board a car parked behind the jeepney.[28] He tried to resist, but the
arresting officers overpowered him.[29]

Villasana was brought to the Narcotics Office on the second floor of the Valenzuela City
Hall,[30] where they waited for his brother and sister who were supposed to bring
P50,000.00 as "areglo."[31] His siblings, however, did not show up.[32] At around 10:00
p.m., Villasana was brought to the Marulas Barangay Hall, where he was asked to sign a
document.[33] The police officers showed him the alleged evidence against him and told
him that he would be charged with a drug-related offense.[34]

On October 28, 2010, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision[35] convicting
Villasana. The dispositive portion of the Decision read:

WHEREFORE, accused JOSEPH VILLASANA y CABAHUG is hereby found GUILTY

beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11 of Article 2 of R.A. 9165
in Criminal Case No. 16-V-05. Accordingly, the said accused is hereby ordered to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen
(14) years and eight (8) months as maximum. Further, the said accused is ordered to pay
a FINE in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php) 300,000.00.

The Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is directed to turn over to PDEA the drugs used
as evidence in this case for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.[36]

Villasana appealed before the Court of Appeals. He argued that the trial court gravely
erred: (1) in finding the evidence admissible despite the illegality of his arrest; (2) in
finding him guilty despite the police officers' failure to comply with Article II, Section 21
of Republic Act No. 9165; (3) in giving full credence to the prosecution witness'
testimony; and (4) in convicting him despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.[37]

In its March 11, 2013 Decision,[38] the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court
Decision in toto:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is

hereby DENIED and the October 28, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
171 in Valenzuela City in Criminal Case No. 16-V-05 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.[39] (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)

The Court of Appeals held that there was a valid warrantless arrest because Villasana
"was caught in flagrante delicto of having in his possession an illegal drug."[40] It also
found that the police officers had probable cause to apprehend Villasana, as he matched
the description given by the informant, and was also found at the place specified by the
informant. It further noted that when they apprehended him, they found in his possession
a sachet containing white crystalline substance, which turned out to be shabu.[41]

In any case, the Court of Appeals held that Villasana was already estopped from
questioning the legality of his arrest since he failed to move for the quashing of the
Information before his arraignment. Neither did he raise the issue of his
warrantless arrest prior to or during the proceedings before the trial court.[42]

The Court of Appeals gave no merit to Villasana's claim on noncompliance with the
guidelines on custody and disposition of the seized items.[43] It gave credence to PO3
Martinez's testimony, in which he stated that after confiscating the sachet containing the
illegal drug, he marked it with "JCV,"[44] and along with PO2 Sanchez and PO2 Magno,
brought it to the Marulas Barangay Hall where it was inventoried in the presence of
Villasana, Kagawad Mendez, and the other barangay tanods, and later to the Crime
Laboratory for examination. The Court of Appeals held that, absent any showing of ill
motive on the part of the police officers, the presumption of regularity in the performance
of their official duty applied.[45]
The Court of Appeals further held that procedural infirmities in the custody of dangerous
drugs are insufficient to render the seized items inadmissible in court as evidence,[46] so
long as their integrity was shown to be preserved, as in this case.[47]

Villasana filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied in the Court of Appeals'
August 28, 2013 Resolution.[48]

Hence, this Petition[49] was filed. Respondent People of the Philippines, through the
Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Comment.[50]

Petitioner assails his conviction on the grounds that: (1) his warrantless arrest was invalid
and the drug allegedly seized from him was inadmissible in evidence;[51] (2) there were
irregularities in the custody and the police officers' handling of the seized shabu, such as
inconsistent markings and the marking itself not done at the place of the arrest;[52] and (3)
there was noncompliance with the inventory and photograph requirements under Section
21 of Republic Act No. 9165.[53]

Respondent counters that petitioner purely raises questions of fact that are proscribed in a
Rule 45 petition.[54] At any rate, it contends that because petitioner entered his plea
without objection, he waived his right to question any irregularity in his arrest. Also, even
if there was no waiver of the issue, respondent claims that petitioner's arrest was valid as
he was caught in flagrante delicto possessing shabu.[55]

Respondent adds that noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21[56] did not
render the seizure of the dangerous drug void since the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized item were preserved.[57] Finally, it contends that the chain of custody of the
seized specimen—from inventory until submission to the Crime Laboratory—was
already stipulated upon and is considered a judicial admission on the part of petitioner.[58]

This Court resolves the following issues:

First, whether or not factual issues can be raised in a Rule 45 petition; and

Second, whether or not the guilt of petitioner Joseph Villasana y Cabahug was proven
beyond reasonable doubt.

This Court grants the Petition. The prosecution failed to prove petitioner's guilt.

As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[59] This Court is not a trier of facts.[60] It is not our function
to review evidence all over again.[61] Furthermore, the factual findings of the trial court,
especially when upheld by the Court of Appeals, are generally given great
weight[62] considering the trial court's unique position to directly observe a witness'
demeanor on the stand.[63]

A departure from the general rule, however, may be warranted where facts of weight and
substance have been overlooked, misconstrued, or misapplied.[64] In Lapi v. People,[65] this
Court said:

This Court is not precluded from reviewing the factual findings of the lower courts, or
even arriving at a different conclusion, "if it is not convinced that [the findings] are
conformable to the evidence of record and to its own impressions of the credibility of the
witnesses." The lower court[s'] [f]actual findings will not bind this Court if facts that
could affect the result of the case "were overlooked and disregarded[.]"[66] (Citations
omitted)

As will be discussed later, several circumstances in this case, if properly appreciated,

would lead to a conclusion different from what was arrived at by the Regional Trial Court
and the Court of Appeals.

II

The prosecution failed to establish probable cause to justify the in flagrante

delicto arrest of petitioner. Thus, the ensuing seizure of the shabu purportedly in his
possession is unlawful, and the seized drug is, therefore, inadmissible in evidence.

Under the 1987 Constitution, all citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and
seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and effects.[67] As a rule, a search and seizure
must be carried out with a search warrant validly issued by a judge upon personal
determination of probable cause;[68] otherwise, the search becomes unreasonable. It
follows that any item or article obtained from such search cannot be used as evidence for
any purpose in any proceeding.[69]

Jurisprudence, however, has recognized several exceptions to the search warrant

requirement.[70] Among these exceptions is a search incidental to a lawful arrest.[71] In this
instance, the lawful arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be reversed.[72]

A lawful arrest may be effected with or without a warrant. The instances of

lawful arrest without warrant are provided in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, which states:

SECTION 5. Arrest Without Warrant; When Lawful. — A peace officer or a private

person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement
to another. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 5(a) refers to an in flagrante delicto arrest, and requires compliance with the
"overt act test," as explained in People v. Cogaed:[73]

[F]or a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be affected, "two elements must

concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he [or she]
has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2)
such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer."[74] (Citation omitted)

Section 5(b), on the other hand, requires that at the time of the arrest, an offense had just
been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of the facts indicating
that the accused had committed it.

In both instances, the police officer must have personal knowledge of the commission of
an offense. Under Section 5(a), the officer himself or herself witnesses the crime; in
Section 5(b), the officer knows that a crime has just been committed[75] and had witnessed
some facts that led him or her to believe that the person about to be arrested committed
the offense.[76]

On several occasions, this Court has invalidated[77] warrantless arrests and ensuing
searches and seizures for the arresting officers' failure to comply with the overt act test, or
for their lack of personal knowledge that a crime has just been committed by the accused.

In Comerciante v. People,[78] this Court ruled that the warrantless arrest was not lawful
because the arresting officers failed to determine beforehand that a criminal activity was
ongoing. It remarked that it was highly implausible that the police officer would be able
to identify—especially around 10 meters away and while aboard a motorcycle cruising at
a speed of 30 kilometers per hour—minuscule amounts (0.15 gram and 0.28 gram) of
white crystalline substance inside two (2) very small plastic sachets held by the accused.
This Court further held that merely "standing around with a companion and handing
over something to the latter cannot in any way be considered criminal acts."[79]

Similarly, in Sindac v. People,[80] this Court held that considering that the arresting
officer was five (5) to ten (10) meters away from when a man allegedly handed the
accused a plastic sachet containing suspected shabu, it was highly doubtful that the
officer was able to reasonably ascertain that a crime was being committed. It held:

Considering that PO3 Peñamora was at a considerable distance away from the alleged
criminal transaction (five [5] to ten [10] meters), not to mention the atomity of the object
thereof (0.04 gram of white crystalline substance contained in a plastic sachet), the Court
finds it highly doubtful that said arresting officer was able to reasonably ascertain that
any criminal activity was afoot so as to prompt him to conduct a lawful in flagrante
delicto arrest and, thereupon, a warrantless search. These similar circumstances were
availing in the cases of Comerciante v. People and People v. Villareal where the Court
likewise invalidated the in flagrante delcito (sic) arrest and ensuing warrantless search. In
this relation, it should also be pointed out that no criminal overt act could be properly
attributed to Sindac so as to rouse any reasonable suspicion in the mind of either PO3
Penamora or PO1 Asis that Sindac had just committed, was committing, or was about to
commit a crime. Sindac's actuations of talking to and later on, receiving an unidentified
object from Canon, without more, should not be considered as ongoing criminal
activity that would render proper an in flagrante delicto arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule
113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[81] (Emphasis supplied, citations
omitted)

In this case, PO3 Martinez was about six (6) to ten (10) meters away when he saw
petitioner emerge from an alley, talking to a woman while holding a plastic sachet. His
testimony fails to state that he had personal knowledge that the sachet contained shabu, or
that he saw the sachet containing white crystalline substance, to create a reasonable
suspicion that the sachet did indeed contain shabu. From all indications—the time of
the arrest being 11:30 p.m., PO3 Martinez's location, and the tinted front windshield of
the van through which he was looking—it was highly doubtful that PO3 Martinez saw,
let alone deciphered, the contents of the sachet.[82] For sure, it was only when he held
petitioner's hand[83] and confiscated the plastic sachet that he was able to verify its
contents.[84]

What appears from PO3 Martinez's narration of facts is that petitioner was arrested: (1)
because of the informant's tip that he was selling drugs;[85] and (2) because he was known
to PO2 Magno and PO2 Sanchez.[86]

It is settled that "reliable information" provided by police assets alone is not sufficient to
justify a warrantless arrest.[87] There must be independent circumstances perceivable by
the arresting officers suggesting that a criminal offense is being committed to comply
with the exacting requirements of Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. An accused
must perform some overt act within plain view of the police officers indicating that she or
"he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime."[88] None was present in this case.

With petitioner's arrest being illegal, the subsequent seizure of the shabu allegedly in his
possession becomes "unreasonable." At this point, it must be emphasized that petitioner's
failure to question his arrest before he made his plea only affects the jurisdiction of the
court over his person[89] and does not bar him from raising the inadmissibility of the
illegally seized shabu. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a
waiver of the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained during the illegal arrest.[90]

Because the dangerous drug was unlawfully seized, it cannot be used as evidence against
petitioner. Without the dangerous drug, petitioner's acquittal based on reasonable doubt is
inevitable.

III

Likewise, petitioner's imputation of irregularities in the custody and the police officers'
handling of the seized shabu is well taken. From the facts on record, the police officers
had compromised the integrity of the shabu purportedly seized from him.

The corpus delicti in the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs consists in
the dangerous drug itself, without which no conviction of the accused can be obtained.
[91]
It is indispensable for the State to establish the identity of the dangerous drugs, the
integrity of which must have been preserved.[92] This requires proof beyond reasonable
doubt that the drugs seized from the accused and subsequently examined in the laboratory
are the same drugs presented in court as evidence.[93]

Toward this end, each link in the chain of custody of the seized drug must be accounted
for[94] to show that there was no "tampering, alteration[,] or substitution either by accident
or otherwise."[95]

In Mallillin, Jr. v. People,[96] this Court expounded on the rationale behind the exacting
requirements of Republic Act No. 9165 in prosecutions for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs:

Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest
when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature
and similar inform to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. Graham vs.
State positively acknowledged this danger. In that case where a substance later analyzed
as heroin — was handled by two police officers prior to examination who however did
not testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it was in
their possession — was excluded from the prosecution evidence, the court pointing out
that the white powder seized could have been indeed heroin or it could have been sugar
or baking powder. It ruled that unless the state can show by records or testimony, the
continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into the
possession of police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its
composition, testimony of the state as to the laboratory's findings is inadmissible.

A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as
in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and
nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the
possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there could have
been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases — by accident
or otherwise — in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was
submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more
stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must
be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with
sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either
been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.[97] (Emphasis
supplied, citations omitted)

The first and crucial stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs and
other related items immediately upon confiscation from the accused.
[98]
In People v. Gonzales,[99] this Court explained:

The first stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related
items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the
apprehending officer or the poseur- buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying
signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately
upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because
succeeding handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as
reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or
related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are
disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching,
planting, or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon
confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the
preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.[100] (Emphasis supplied, citation
omitted)

Here, PO3 Martinez stated during trial that he marked the seized sachet with accused-
appellant's initials "JCV" in the "office." But the office—whether in the Marulas
Barangay Hall where Villasana was supposedly first brought, or in the Station Anti-
Illegal Drugs Special Operation Unit—remained unclear from his testimony. In any case,
it is manifest that the seized drugs were not immediately marked upon seizure, and the
records do not show why it was not done at the earliest possible opportunity.

More importantly, there is no clear showing that the marking had been done in the
presence of petitioner or his representative. This can be gleaned from PO3 Martinez's
testimony both on direct and cross-examination:

Q You said you were able to confiscate from the accused a plastic sachet containing shabu, if
that small plastic sachet will be shown to you, will you be able to identify the same?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why would you be able to identify that piece of sachet which you were able to recover from
the accused?
A I put the initial of the suspect.
Q I am showing to you a small piece of plastic sachet with marking JCV . . . will you please
take a look at this and tell us what is the relation of this piece of small plastic sachet with
that small plastic sachet which you said you were able to recover from the accused?
A This is the one I recovered from the accused.
Q Now there is a marking here JCV, who put this marking?
A I, sir.
Q Where were you at that time when you put this marking JCV?
A In the office.[101]
....
Q So where did you bring Jojo Villasana after his apprehension?
A After his arrest, we made an inventory report and requested for drug test and brought him to
the barangay.
Q So you brought Jojo Villasana first to your office to prepare the documents for drug test and
for the marking of evidence after his arrest?
A We brought him directly to the barangay because the entries were only handwritten.[102]

Moreover, while it was stipulated that PO3 Martinez delivered the specimen together
with the letter-request for laboratory examination to the Crime Laboratory in
Sangandaan, Caloocan City, it is unclear who actually received the confiscated plastic
sachets and had their custody and possession before they were examined by Inspector
Arturo.

The identity of the person who received the sachet, the condition in which it was received
from PO3 Martinez, and the condition in which it was delivered to Inspector Arturo for
analysis are all important. This is due to the variance in what was stated in these
documents—the Request for Laboratory Examination referred to "One small plastic
evidence bag marked as SAID-SOU/VCPS 04-12-05 containing one (1) pc small plastic
sachet . . . marked as 'JCV'";[103] Physical Science Report No. D-006-05 referred to "One
(1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag with markings 'SAID-SOU/VCPS 04-01-05'
containing 0.15 gram of white crystalline substance and marked as A-1"[104] The
discrepancies in the markings create doubt as to whether the specimen allegedly seized
from petitioner and submitted to the Crime Laboratory was the same one examined by
Inspector Arturo, and subsequently presented in court.

Furthermore, there was noncompliance with the legal requirements under Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165. Section 21 defines the procedure to be followed by the
apprehending officers to ensure the integrity of the seized dangerous drugs and drug
paraphernalia.[105]

Section 21 relevantly provides:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered

Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment|||
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Republic Act No. 9165, [June 7, 2002])
— ...

(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[.] (Emphasis supplied)

Conformably, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act
No. 9165 states:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered

Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. — . . . .
(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[.] (Emphasis supplied)
This Court mandated a strict adherence to the requirements of Section 21 considering the
indistinct nature of illegal drugs that makes it easily susceptible to tampering, alteration,
or substitution.[106] The minuscule amount involved here—0.15 gram—makes it even
more imperative for the police officers to follow the prescribed procedure.
[107]
Consequently, noncompliance produces doubt on the origins of the seized items.[108]

Here, the inventory sheet was not signed by representatives from the media and the
Department of Justice, and there were no photographs taken. These procedural lapses
happened despite the conduct of a briefing[109] prior to the operation and PO3 Martinez's
supposed experience in the conduct of drug-related operations.[110] PO3 Martinez neither
tendered any justification in court, nor was there any explanation or justification by the
apprehending officers in the case records.

In People v. Jaafar,[111] this Court held that the exception under Section 21 (a) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 "will only be triggered
by the existence of a ground that justifies departure from the general rule."[112] For the
proviso to apply, the prosecution must prove that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for the
noncompliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were
properly preserved.[113]

In People v. Battling,[114] this Court stressed:

The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance with the
procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty
to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must
initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements
of law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and
must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. It should take note
that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable
ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a
statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Strict
adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is
minuscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence.
[115]
(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, therefore, gravely erred in ruling that
there was an unbroken chain of custody despite the arresting officers' failure: (1) to mark
the confiscated plastic sachets immediately upon seizure and in the presence of petitioner
or his representative; (2) to comply with the inventory and photographing requirements;
(3) to identify the individual who received the specimen from PO3 Martinez and took its
custody before being given to Inspector Arturo for examination; and (4) to explain the
discrepancies in the identification of the specimen as indicated in the Request for
Laboratory Examination and Physical Science Report No. D-006-05.

The police officers' unjustified noncompliance with the requirements for the marking and
inventory of the seized drugs overthrows the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their official duty.[116] Their "ostensibly approximate compliance"[117] is
not enough, and therefore, tantamount to a failure to establish the corpus delicti. This
raises reasonable doubt in petitioner's favor.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The March 11, 2013 Decision and August
28, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 34596, which
affirmed in toto the October 28, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela
City, Branch 171, are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Petitioner Joseph Villasana y
Cabahug is ACQUITTED.