THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 210677. August 23, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABUNDIO M.

SARAGENA , accused-appellant.

DECISION

LEONEN , J : p

When the quantity of the con scated substance is miniscule, the requirements of
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, must be strictly complied with. 1 HTcADC

The prosecution's failure to present the police o cer who acted as the poseur-
buyer in the buy-bust operation, which allegedly involved 0.03 grams of shabu, coupled
with the improbability that the two (2) apprehending police o cers witnessed the
transaction at night time, engenders reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. The
prosecution's failure to su ciently establish the chain of custody in accordance with
the law further amplifies the doubt on accused's guilt.
In its April 2, 2013 Decision, 2 the Court of Appeals upheld Abundio Mamolo
Saragena's 3 (Saragena) conviction in the Regional Trial Court Judgment dated August
21, 2008. 4
This Court reverses his conviction and acquits him of the sale of dangerous
drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
On September 23, 2005, 5 SPO1 Roldan Paller (SPO1 Paller) received information
that a certain "Tatay" 6 was selling illegal drugs at Sitio Sindulan, Brgy. Mabolo, Cebu
City. 7 "Tatay's" exact address was unknown. 8
A buy-bust team was formed, composed of SPO3 Raul Magdadaro (SPO3
Magdadaro) as team leader, PO1 Roy Misa (PO1 Misa) 9 as poseur-buyer, and SPO1
Paller as back-up. 1 0 SPO1 Paller called the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for
coordination on the buy-bust operation. 1 1 SPO1 Paller, SPO3 Magdadaro, and PO1
Misa held a brie ng before jump-off. A buy-bust money of P100.00, bearing the serial
no. VT129780, was handed to PO1 Misa. 1 2
On June 23, 2005, at about 7:00 p.m., the buy-bust team headed to Sitio Sindulan
in their service vehicle. 1 3 An informant helped them locate the house of accused-
appellant, 1 4 Saragena, alias "Tatay." 1 5 The police o cers parked three (3) corners
away from accused-appellant's house. 1 6
As the designated poseur-buyer, PO1 Misa walked towards accused-appellant's
house. 1 7 SPO1 Paller and SPO3 Magdadaro trailed behind him. 1 8 Accused-appellant's
house was located at the back of a stage. 1 9 As PO1 Misa drew closer to the target
site, SPO1 Paller and SPO3 Magdadaro hid themselves at the side of the stage, 2 0
beside the basketball court. 2 1 The distance between the designated poseur-buyer and
the two (2) back-up officers were about five (5) to eight (8) meters. 2 2
Outside accused-appellant's house, 2 3 PO1 Misa convinced the suspect to sell
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 him shabu. 2 4 PO1 Misa handed the P100.00 bill as payment, for which he received a
"pack of white crystalline substance." 2 5 SPO1 Paller and SPO3 Magdadaro then rushed
to the scene 2 6 and introduced themselves as police officers. 2 7 SPO1 Paller conducted
a body search on accused-appellant and recovered the buy-bust money. Accused-
appellant was brought to the police station. 2 8
PO1 Misa retained custody of the plastic pack, while SPO1 Paller took the buy-
bust money from accused-appellant. 2 9 At the police station, 3 0 PO1 Misa turned over
the plastic pack to their team leader, SPO3 Magdadaro, 3 1 who then marked it with the
letters "AS." 3 2 The incident was logged in the police blotter. 3 3
SPO3 Magdadaro wrote a letter-request for laboratory examination of the seized
and marked plastic pack, signed by Chief Police Superintendent Armando Macolbacol
Radoc. 3 4 PO1 Misa, accompanied by SPO1 Paller, 3 5 delivered SPO3 Magdadaro's
letter-request and the seized plastic pack to the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory in Cebu City. 3 6 A certain PO2 Roma received the letter-request and the
specimen from PO1 Misa and then delivered these items to P/S Insp. Pinky Sayson-
Acog (P/S Insp. Acog), 3 7 a forensic chemist. 3 8
On June 23, 2005, 3 9 P/S Insp. Acog found the plastic pack marked as "AS" to be
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 4 0 She entered her ndings in her
Chemistry Report No. D-890-2005, 4 1 marked the specimen as "D-890-05," and put her
initials, "PSA." 4 2
On the other hand, according to the defense, accused-appellant was at home
when three (3) armed police o cers kicked the door of his house. 4 3 He recognized
PO1 Misa, SPO1 Paller, and SPO3 Magdadaro as they frequented illegal cock ghts 4 4
and would take turns asking for the defeated ghting cock. 4 5 The police o cers held
accused-appellant. 4 6 One (1) of them searched his pockets but found nothing. They
also searched his house. 4 7
Despite the lack of contraband found, accused-appellant was sent to the Mabolo
Police Station. He inquired why he was being arrested. The buy-bust team told him that
they were able to buy shabu from him. 4 8 Denying this accusation, accused-appellant
asserted that they planted the evidence. 4 9
An Information was led against accused-appellant for the illegal sale of a
dangerous drug under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, as follows:
That on or about the 23rd day of June, 2005, at about 7:00 P.M. in the
City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, with deliberate intent, and without authority of law, did then and
there sell, deliver or give away to a poseur buyer:
one (1) heat[-]sealed transparent plastic pocket containing
0.03 gram[s] of white crystalline substance locally known as
"SHABU" containing methylamphetamine (sic) hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5 0
On August 21, 2008, the Regional Trial Court convicted 5 1 accused-appellant of
the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the Decision read: aScITE

In ne, the prosecution has successfully discharged its task to adduce

evidence to obtain a conviction.
For all the foregoing, accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 life imprisonment and to pay a fine of one million pesos.
The plastic pack of shabu is order[ed] forfeited in favor of the
government.
SO ORDERED. 5 2
Accused-appellant appealed 5 3 before the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals found that the police o cers failed to comply with the
compulsory procedure on the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs under Section
21 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the chain of custody rule. Nevertheless, it justi ed the
noncompliance by applying the exception in the same provision. 5 4
On April 2, 2013, the Court of Appeals convicted 5 5 accused-appellant. The
dispositive portion of the Decision read:
After due consideration, We resolve that accused-appellant has not
overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution against him. This Court
nds accused-appellant GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165.
WHEREFORE , the instant appeal is DENIED . The RTC's judgment dated
August 21, 2008 is AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED. 56 (Emphasis in the original)
For resolution of this Court is the sole issue of whether or not accused-appellant
Abundio Mamolo Saragena is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5
of Republic Act No. 9165. Subsumed in this issue is the matter of whether or not the
law enforcement officers substantially complied with the chain of custody rule.
This Court rules in favor of accused-appellant.

Absent proof beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant is presumed innocent

of the crime charged.
Section 14 (2) of Article III of the Constitution provides that "[i]n all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved[.]" To
overcome this constitutional presumption, prosecution must establish accused's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. 5 7
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not require absolute certainty; it only
requires moral certainty or the "degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind." 5 8 Thus:
Reasonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole
proof and an inability after such investigation to let the mind rest ea[sy] upon
the certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to
convict a criminal charge, but moral certainty is required as to every proposition
of proof requisite to constitute the offense. 5 9
The legal presumption of innocence prevails if the judge's mind cannot rest easy
on the certainty that the accused committed the crime. In People v. Santos: 6 0
The prosecution has the burden to overcome such presumption of
innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. Corollarily, the
prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 the defense. If the prosecution fails to meet the required quantum of evidence
[of proof beyond reasonable doubt], the defense may logically not even present
evidence on its own behalf. In which case, the presumption of innocence shall
prevail and hence, the accused shall be acquitted. 6 1
This rule is borne by the need to evenly balance the State's encompassing
powers to prosecute and the defense's arduous struggle for liberty. 6 2 It addresses the
inherent inequality in resources, command, capacity, and authority between the State
and an accused. 6 3 In People v. Berroya: 6 4
[P]roof beyond reasonable doubt lies in the fact that "(i)n a criminal prosecution,
the State is arrayed against the subject; it enters the contest with a prior
inculpatory nding in its hands; with unlimited means of command; with
counsel usually of authority and capacity, who are regarded as public o cers,
and therefore as speaking semi-judicially, and with an attitude of tranquil
majesty often in striking contrast to that of defendant engaged in a perturbed
and distracting struggle for liberty[,] if not for life. These inequalities of position,
the law strives to meet by the rule that there is to be no conviction when there is
a reasonable doubt of guilt." 6 5 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

II

There is great possibility of abuse in drug cases, especially those involving

miniscule amounts. This Court has recognized that buy-bust operations could be
initiated based on dubious claims of shady persons, or that small amounts of illicit
drugs could be planted as evidence on innocent individuals, in view of the secrecy
surrounding drug deals in general. Thus:
"[B]y 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 or hands of
unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug
deals, the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, the courts have been exhorted to
be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer
the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses[.] 6 6 (Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, courts must subject "the prosecution evidence through the crucible of
a severe testing . . . [T]he presumption of innocence requires them to take a more than
casual consideration of every circumstance or doubt favoring the innocence of the
accused." 6 7 In deliberating the accused's guilt, courts must exercise "utmost diligence
and prudence." 6 8 More importantly, they must be on their guard in trying drug cases;
otherwise, they risk meting severe penalties to innocent persons. 6 9
Here, there is reasonable doubt that the sale of shabu took place.
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 penalizes any person who sells a dangerous
drug, regardless of quantity. To successfully convict an accused under this provision,
the prosecution must establish the identities of the buyer and the seller, the item sold,
and the consideration given for it. There must be an actual sale, consummated through
delivery and payment. Finally, the corpus delicti must be presented in court as evidence.
70 HEITAD

According to accused-appellant, SPO3 Magdadaro's allegation of having "clearly"

seen the exchange of money and the pack of shabu between accused-appellant and
PO1 Misa is "quite disturbing."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 It is unclear how SPO1 Paller and SPO3 Magdadaro allegedly witnessed the
purported sale. The alleged illegal drug was of very small quantity. It weighed only 0.03
grams, 7 1 approximately as light as a grain of rice 7 2 or an ant. 7 3 The alleged
transaction between PO1 Misa and accused-appellant happened ve (5) to eight (8)
meters away from SPO3 Magdadaro. 7 4 While PO1 Misa was allegedly buying shabu
from accused-appellant, SPO1 Paller and SPO3 Magdadaro were hiding at the side of
the stage. Accused-appellant's house was at the back of this stage where they hid. 7 5
Likewise, it was already 7:00 p.m. and the night time would have impaired their vision.
PO1 Misa, the only person who could attest to the commission of the crime, was
not presented in court. 7 6 The poseur-buyer "had personal knowledge of the transaction
since he conducted the actual transaction." 7 7 His testimony is crucial in establishing
the alleged facts and circumstances surrounding the purported sale. 7 8
The failure to present the poseur-buyer casts doubt on the charge that an illegal
sale of drugs took place. SPO1 Paller and SPO3 Magdadaro's location, the nightfall, and
the miniscule amount of the alleged illegal drug further call into question prosecution's
claim that SPO1 Paller and SPO3 Magdadaro witnessed the scene.
Even if there was a sale, the corpus delicti was not proven as the chain of
custody was defective.
The corpus delicti is the body of the crime that would establish that a crime was
committed. 7 9 In cases involving the sale of drugs, the corpus delicti is the con scated
illicit drug itself, 8 0 the integrity of which must be preserved. 8 1
Accused-appellant argues that the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the
shabu allegedly recovered from him violated the chain of custody rule. 8 2 His
contention is meritorious. The police o cers' lapses are numerous and unjusti ed that
there are serious grounds to doubt the preservation of the integrity of the corpus
delicti.
To begin with, no evidence was adduced to show specifically how the police
o cers handled, stored, and safeguarded the seized shabu pending its offer as
evidence. The records merely state:
a. PO1 Misa, as the poseur-buyer, transacted with accused-appellant with the
buy-bust money. Upon receipt of the buy-bust money, accused-appellant
gave PO1 Misa a plastic pack of white crystalline substance.
b. PO1 Misa turned over the specimen drug to SPO3 Magdadaro at the police
station.
c. SPO3 Magdadaro marked the plastic pack of white crystalline substance
as "AS."
d. SPO3 Magdadaro then drafted a letter-request for laboratory examination
of the specimen drug signed by Chief Police Superintendent Armando
Macolbacol Radoc.
e. PO1 Misa then delivered the letter-request for laboratory examination of the
specimen drug, and the actual specimen drug marked as "AS" to the crime
laboratory.
f. SPO2 Roma received the letter-request and the specimen drug.
g. SPO2 Roma immediately delivered the letter-request and the specimen
drug to [PS]Insp. Acog, the forensic chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory.
h. [PS]Insp. Acog made the chemical analysis and concluded that the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 specimen white crystalline substance tested positive for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
i. [PS]Insp. Acog was presented before the court a quo for identi cation of the
subject specimen marked as "AS." 8 3
There was no showing that accused-appellant signed a receipt of the inventory of
the pack of shabu, that it was marked in his presence, that photographs were taken, or
that he was made to sign a confiscation receipt relating to the seized pack of shabu. 8 4
This Court emphasizes that "ostensibly approximate compliance" does not
su ce; rather, there must be actual compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No.
9165. 8 5 Not doing so is tantamount to a failure to establish the corpus delicti, a crucial
element of the crime charged. 8 6
This case arose from a buy-bust operation. While a buy-bust operation can
indeed enable authorities to uncover illicit transactions otherwise kept under wraps,
this Court has recognized that such an operation poses a signi cant drawback — that
is, "[i]t is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for
extortion." 8 7
To avert such possibility, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable
doubt that the dangerous drug offered during trial was the same that was bought
during the buy-bust operation. 8 8 The chain of custody rule under Republic Act No. 9165
fulfills this rigorous requirement. 8 9
Section 1 (b) of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 01-02, which
implements Republic Act No. 9165, explains chain of custody rule as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/con scation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of
seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of
custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,
and the final disposition.
This Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the prosecution failed to follow
the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Paragraph 1 of Section 21 of the original Republic Act No. 9165 (2002) provides
the requirements for ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item: ATICcS

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and con scation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of [a] the accused or the person/s
from whom such items were con scated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, [b] a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and [c] any elected public o cial who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof[.] (Emphasis supplied)
This is reiterated in paragraph 1 of Section 21 of the amended 9 0 Republic Act
No. 9165 (2013):
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately
after seizure and con scation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items
and photograph the same in the presence of [a] the accused or the persons from
whom such items were con scated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, [b] with an elected public o cial and [c] 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 o ce of the
apprehending o cer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures: Provided, nally , That noncompliance of these requirements under
justi able grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending o cer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. (Emphasis
supplied)
The chain of custody rule is further clari ed by Section 1 (A) of the Guidelines on
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as
amended (Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations). 9 1
The Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations require the
apprehending team to mark, inventory, and photograph the evidence in the following
manner:
First, the apprehending o cer or the poseur-buyer must place his or her initials
and signature on the seized item. 9 2 Here, PO1 Misa did not place his initials "RM" on
the con scated pack; rather, it was SPO3 Magdadaro who wrote "AS" on it, 9 3
presumably standing for accused-appellant's initials for Abundio Saragena, instead of
the police o cer's initials. It was also not shown whether PO1 Misa or SPO3
Magdadaro signed the plastic pack.
Second, in a warrantless search as in this case, the marking of the drug must be
done in the presence of the accused-appellant 9 4 and at the earliest possible
opportunity. 9 5 The earliest possible opportunity to mark the evidence is immediately at
the place where it was seized, if practicable, 9 6 to avoid the risk that the seized item
might be altered while in transit. 9 7 In People v. Sabdula: 9 8
[C]rucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other
related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. "Marking"
means the placing by the apprehending o cer or the poseur-buyer of his/her
initials and signature on the items seized. Long before Congress passed R.A.
No. 9165, this Court has consistently held that failure of the authorities to
immediately mark the seized drugs casts reasonable doubt on the authenticity
of the corpus delicti.
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is
vital that the seized contraband be 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 the criminal proceedings, thus preventing
switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. 9 9 (Emphasis supplied,
citation omitted)
Here, the records do not show why the o cers had to wait to arrive at the police
station 1 0 0 before marking the seized plastic pack. The earliest available opportunity to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 mark it was in accused-appellant's house. Likewise, there is no showing that the seized
item was marked in the presence of accused-appellant. All that the prosecution
established was that, while at the police station, PO1 Misa turned over the plastic pack
to SPO3 Magdadaro, who marked it with the letters "AS." 1 0 1 Other details are left out
for this Court to guess.
As in People v. Dahil , 1 0 2 this Court cannot determine "how the unmarked drugs
were handled," making it possible for the seized item to have been altered, thus:
The Court must conduct guesswork on how the seized drugs were transported
and who took custody of them while in transit. Evidently, the alteration of the
seized items was a possibility absent their immediate marking thereof . 1 0 3
(Emphasis supplied)
Third, the physical inventory and photograph of the seized item must be done in
the presence of (a) the accused, the accused's representative, or the accused's
counsel; (b) any elected public o cial; and (c) a representative of the Department of
Justice's National Prosecution Service or a media practitioner. These three (3) persons
required by law should sign the copies of the inventory of the seized item and be given
a copy of the certi cate of inventory. 1 0 4 This insulates the buy-bust operation "from
any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." 1 0 5
Here, it was not shown that the buy-bust team conducted a physical inventory or
took photographs of the contraband after its con scation. Moreover, none of the
witnesses testi ed that (a) accused-appellant, his representative or counsel, (b) any
elected o cial, and (c) a representative from the media or from the National
Prosecution Service signed a confiscation receipt.
Section 1 (A.1.6) of the Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations
states that "[a] representative of the N[ational] P[rosecution] S[ervice] is anyone from
its employees, while the media representative is any media practitioner. The elected
public o cial is any incumbent public o cial regardless of the place where he/she is
elected."
The presence of these three (3) persons required by law can be ensured in a
planned operation such as a buy-bust operation. Here, the buy-bust operation was
arranged and scheduled in advance: the police o cers formed an apprehending team,
coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, 1 0 6 prepared the buy-bust
money, and held a brie ng. 1 0 7 Yet, they failed to ensure that a National Prosecution
O ce representative, or if unavailable, any media practitioner, would be present during
the seizure of shabu. They also failed to ensure that any incumbent public o cial such
as a barangay captain or kagawad would be there at the same time. TIADCc

Securing the presence of these persons is not impossible. Lescano v. People 1 0 8

a rmed that it is not enough for the apprehending o cers to merely mark the seized
pack of shabu; the buy-bust team must also conduct a physical inventory and take
photographs of the con scated item in the presence of these persons required by law.
109

Finally, the apprehending team shall "document the chain of custody each time a
specimen is handled, transferred or presented in court until its disposal, and every
individual in the chain of custody shall be identi ed following the laboratory control and
chain of custody form." 1 1 0
People v. Kamad 1 1 1 stated that the prosecution must prove four (4) links in the
chain of custody of evidence. Read with the Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and
Regulations, Kamad provided for the following steps to establish the links necessary
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 for a chain of custody of the specimen seized from the accused:
First, the apprehending o cer seizes and then marks the dangerous drug taken
from the accused. 1 1 2 The chain of custody of evidence must show the time and place
that the seized item is marked and the names of the officers who marked it. 1 1 3
Second, the apprehending o cer turns over the seized dangerous drug to the
investigating officer. 1 1 4 The chain of custody of evidence must establish the names of
officers who inventoried, photographed, and/or sealed the seized item. 1 1 5
Third, the investigating o cer turns over the seized dangerous drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination. 1 1 6 The chain of custody of evidence must
show the names of o cers who had custody and received the evidence from one
officer to another within the chain. 1 1 7
Fourth, the forensic chemist turns over and submits the marked con scated
dangerous drug to the court. 1 1 8 Similarly, the chain of custody of evidence must show
the names of o cers who had custody and received the evidence from one o cer to
another within the chain. 1 1 9
"[E]ach and every link in the custody must be accounted for" until the seized item
is presented before the court. 1 2 0 In this case, there are gaps in the linkages in the chain
of custody. Some key witnesses were absent during trial.
PO1 Misa, the poseur-buyer, was not presented in court. 1 2 1 As a result,
prosecution has not established how the purported transaction with accused-appellant
occurred.
PO1 Misa also delivered the drug specimen to the Philippine National Police
Crime Laboratory for examination. 1 2 2 During the post-seizure custody and handling of
the dangerous drug, a certain PO2 Roma received the specimen from PO1 Misa before
delivering it to P/S Insp. Acog. 1 2 3 However, the prosecution failed to present the
testimony of PO2 Roma, who was also part of the chain of custody. In People v.
Salcena: 1 2 4
[A]n unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of
drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination
and even substitution and exchange. Accordingly, each and every link in the
custody must be accounted for, from the time the shabu was retrieved from
[accused-appellant] during the buy-bust operation to its submission to the
forensic chemist until its presentation before the R[egional] T[rial] C[ourt]. In the
case at bench, the prosecution failed to do so. 1 2 5 (Emphasis supplied, citation
omitted)

III

The chain of custody rule must be strictly complied with. Mallillin v. People 1 2 6
explained that strict compliance goes into the nature of the dangerous drug itself, this
being the subject of prosecution under Republic Act No. 9165. Thus:
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily
identi able as in fact they are subject to scienti c 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 [narcotic substances,] there could have been tampering,
alteration or substitution of substances from other cases — by accident or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 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 identi able must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a
chain of custody of the item with su cient completeness if only to render it
improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or
been contaminated or tampered with. 1 2 7 (Emphasis supplied)
People v. Casacop 1 2 8 held that the buy-bust team "should have been more
meticulous in complying with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 to preserve the
integrity of the seized shabu." 1 2 9 This is especially true where the weight of the seized
item is a miniscule amount that can be easily planted and tampered with. 1 3 0
The Court of Appeals correctly found that the police o cers failed to comply
with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. 1 3 1 However,
this Court reverses the Court of Appeals judgment for erroneously applying the
exception here. 1 3 2
A proviso in the old Section 21 (a) of Republic Act No. 9165 Implementing Rules
and Regulations states that the failure to comply with the chain of custody rule may be
excused in exceptional circumstances, provided that (a) there are justi able grounds
for it, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly
preserved:
[N]on-compliance with these requirements [a] under justi able grounds, [b] as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending o cer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items. 1 3 3
The Court of Appeals disregarded the operative phrase — that the prosecution
must provide "justi able grounds" for noncompliance, in addition to showing that the
prosecution maintained the integrity of the seized item.
In People v. Jafaar , 1 3 4 this Court held that the exception under then Section 21
(a) of Republic Act No. 9165 Implementing Rules and Regulations "will only be triggered
by the existence of a ground that justifies departure from the general rule." 1 3 5
The Court of Appeals' ruling falls further in the face of Sections 1 (A.1.9) and l
(A.1.10) of the Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations, which provide: AIDSTE

A.1.9. Noncompliance, [a] under justi able grounds , with the requirements of
Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165, as amended, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures and custody over the items [b] provided the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team.
A.1.10. Any justi cation or explanation in cases of noncompliance with the
requirements of Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165, as amended, shall be
clearly stated in the sworn statements/a davits of the
apprehending/seizing o cers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/con scated items .
Certi cation or record of coordination for operating units other than the
PDEA pursuant to Section 86 (a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of RA No.
9165 shall be presented. (Emphasis supplied)
The Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations require that the
apprehending o cers do not simply mention a justi able ground, but also clearly state
this ground in their sworn a davit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 preserve the integrity of the seized item. 1 3 6
Here, the prosecution has not given a justi able ground for applying the
exception. All it has done is to assert a self-serving claim that the integrity of the seized
pack has been preserved 1 3 7 despite the numerous procedural lapses it has
committed. The fatal errors of the apprehending team can only lead this Court to
seriously doubt the integrity of the corpus delicti.
Law enforcers "cannot feign ignorance of the exacting standards under Section
21 of Republic Act No. 9165. [They] are presumed and are required to know the laws
they are charged with executing." 1 3 8
The prosecution's procedural shortcut nds no basis in fact or law. Its failure to
comply with the chain of custody rule is equivalent to its failure to establish the corpus
delicti, and therefore, its failure to prove that the crime was indeed committed. 1 3 9 In
People v. Dela Cruz: 1 4 0
Non-compliance [with the chain of custody rule] is tantamount to failure
in establishing identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the offenses of
illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. By failing to establish an
element of these offenses, non-compliance will, thus, engender the acquittal of
an accused. 1 4 1
Accused-appellant is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution had the burden of overcoming such presumption,
which it miserably failed to do so.
In closing, this Court reiterates its ruling in People v. Holgado: 1 4 2
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions
under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we
are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big sh." We are
swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule
amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but
low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law
enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and e cient
strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these
nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources
expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under
doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It
might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task:
to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases
involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels. 1 4 3
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Court of Appeals April 2, 2013 Decision
in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 00939 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE . Accused-appellant
Abundio Mamolo Saragena 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 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 within ve (5) days from receipt of this
decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished the Director General of
the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drugs
Enforcement Agency for their information.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the seized sachet of shabu to the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Bersamin, Martires and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 81 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

2. Rollo, pp. 3-11. The Decision, docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 00939, was penned by
Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and concurred in by Associate Justices
Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino of the Nineteenth Division,
Court of Appeals, Cebu City.

3. Id. at 20.
4. CA rollo, pp. 40-43. The Judgment, docketed as Crim. Case No. CBU-73766, was penned by
Presiding Judge Enriqueta Loquillano-Belarmino of Branch 57, Regional Trial Court,
Cebu City.

5. The records state that it was only on September 23, 2005 when SPO1 Paller received a tip
about "Tatay's" alleged sale of dangerous drugs (Rollo, p. 4). Curiously, the buy-bust
operation that supposedly resulted from this tip happened three months earlier, on June
23, 2005 (CA rollo, p. 40).

6. CA rollo, pp. 29-30.

7. Rollo, p. 4.
8. CA rollo, p. 30.

9. The Regional Trial Court spells his first name as "Roy" (CA rollo, p. 40), while the Court of
Appeals spells it as "Rey." (rollo, p. 4).
10. Rollo, pp. 4-5.

11. Id. at 5.
12. CA rollo, p. 40.

13. Id.

14. Id. at 5.
15. Id. at 40.

16. Id. at 40-41.

17. Id. at 41.

18. Id.

19. Id.
20. Rollo, p. 5.

21. CA rollo, p. 30.

22. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 23. Id. at 61.
24. Id. at 41.

25. Id. at 61.

26. Id. at 41.

27. Rollo, p. 5.

28. Id.
29. CA rollo, p. 41.

30. Id. at 67.

31. Rollo, p. 5.

32. CA rollo, p. 41.

33. Id.
34. Rollo, p. 5.

35. CA rollo, pp. 68-69.

36. Rollo, p. 5.

37. CA rollo, p. 41.

38. Rollo, p. 5.
39. CA rollo, p. 69.

40. Rollo, pp. 5-6. The CA Decision referred to the substance as "methylamphetamine
hydrochloride."
41. CA rollo, p. 41.

42. Id. at 70.

43. Id. at 41.

44. Rollo, p. 6.

45. CA rollo, p. 28.

46. Id. at 41.

47. Id.

48. Id.
49. Id. at 42.

50. Id. at 40.

51. Id. at 40-43. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Enriqueta Loquillano-Belarmino
of Branch 57 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City.

52. Id. at 43.

53. Id. at 24-39.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 54. Rollo, p. 8.

55. Id. at 3-11.

56. Id. at 10-11.

57. People v. Santos Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 467 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
58. People v. Berroya, 347 Phil. 410, 423 (1997) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].

59. People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 467 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

60. 562 Phil. 458 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

61. Id. at 467-468.

62. People v. Berroya, 347 Phil. 410, 423 (1997) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].
63. Id.

64. 347 Phil. 410 (1997) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].

65. Id. at 423.

66. People v. Tan, 401 Phil. 259, 273 (2000) [Per J. Melo, Third Division].

67. People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 472 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
68. People v. Tan, 401 Phil. 259, 273 [Per J. Melo, Third Division].

69. Id.

70. People v. Pagaduan, 641 Phil. 432, 448 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].
71. Id. at 40.

72. A grain of rice has a mass of roughly 0.2 to 0.3 grams. See Tho Lai Hoong, Tho Mun Yi, and
Josephine Fong, Interactive Science for Inquiring Minds, Vol. A (2009), at 36. A weight of
0.03 grams is equivalent to 0.001058219 ounces. 0.001058219 ounces is "about as
heavy as a [g]rain of [r]ice." See The Measure of Things, available at
http://www.bluebulbprojects.com/MeasureOfThings/results.php?
comp=weight&unit=oz&amt=0.001058219.

73. Vosniadou, Stella, ed., International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, 2nd
edition (2013), at 160.
74. CA rollo, p. 30.

75. CA rollo, p. 41.

76. Rollo, p. 4.
77. People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265, 274 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

78. Id.
79. People v. Pagaduan, 641 Phil. 432, 447 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].

80. Id.

81. People v. Caiz, G.R. No. 215340, July 13, 2016

<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 file=/jurisprudence/2016/july2016/215340.pdf> 1 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

82. Rollo, p. 7.

83. Id. at 9-10.

84. CA rollo, pp. 31-32.

85. People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 94 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
86. Lescano v. People, G.R. No. 214490, January 13, 2016
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2016/january2016/214490.pdf> 7 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

87. People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 226 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
88. People v. De Leon, 624 Phil. 786, 800 (2010) [Per J. Velasco Jr., Third Division].

89. Id.

90. Amended by Rep. Act No. 10640.

91. Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of Republic Act
No. 9165 as Amended by Republic Act No. 10640, sec. 1 provides:

  Section 1. Implementing Guidelines. — 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:

  A. Marking, Inventory and Photograph; Chain of Custody Implementing Paragraph "a" of
the IRR
  A.1. The apprehending or seizing officer having initial custody and control of the seized
or confiscated dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, mark, inventory and photograph the same in
the following manner:
  A.1.1. The marking, physical inventory and photograph of the seized/confiscated items
shall be conducted where the search warrant is served.

  A.1.2. The marking is the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of
his/her initial and signature on the item/s seized.
  A.1.3. In warrantless seizures, the marking of the seized items in the presence of the
violator shall be done immediately at the place where the drugs were seized or at the
nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable. The physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted in the same
nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable.

  A.1.4. In cases when the execution of search warrant is preceded by warrantless

seizures, the marking, inventory and photograph of the items recovered from the search
warrant shall be performed separately from the marking, inventory and photograph of
the items seized from warrantless seizures.
  A.1.5. The physical inventory and photograph of the seized/confiscated items shall be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 done in the presence of the suspect or his representative or counsel, with elected public
official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media, who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory of the seized or confiscated items
and be given copy thereof. In case of their refusal to sign, it shall be stated "refused to
sign" above their names in the certificate of inventory of the apprehending or seizing
officer.

  A.1.6. A representative of the NPS is anyone from its employees, while the media
representative is any media practitioner. The elected public official is any incumbent
public official regardless of the place where he/she is elected.

  A.1.7. To prevent switching or contamination, the seized items, which are fungible and
indistinct in character, and which have been marked after the seizure, shall be sealed in a
container or evidence bag and signed by the apprehending/seizing officer for
submission to the forensic laboratory for examination.
  A.1.8. In case of seizure of plant sources at the plantation site, where it is not physically
possible to count or weigh the seizure as a complete entity, the seizing officer shall
estimate its count or gross weight or net weight, as the case may be. If it is safe and
practicable, marking, inventory and photograph of the seized plant sources may be
performed at the plantation site. Representative samples of prescribed quantity pursuant
to Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, as amended, and/or Board Regulation No. 1,
Series of 2007, as amended, shall be taken from the site after the seizure for laboratory
examination, and retained for presentation as the corpus delicti of the
seized/confiscated plant sources following the chain of custody of evidence.

92. See Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 as Amended by Republic Act No. 10640, sec. 1.A.1.2.
93. CA rollo, p. 41.

94. See Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 as Amended by Republic Act No. 10640, sec. 1.A.1.3.
95. People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 233-234 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

96. See Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 as Amended by Republic Act No. 10640, sec. 1.A.1.3.
97. People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 233 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

98. 733 Phil. 85 (2014) [Per J. Brion, First Division].

99. Id. at 95.

100. Rollo, p. 5.

101. Id.
102. 750 Phil. 212 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

103. Id. at 233.

104. See Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 as Amended by Republic Act No. 10640, sec. 1.A.1.5.

105. People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 762 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

106. Rollo, pp. 4-5.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 107. CA rollo, p. 40.

108. Lescano v. People, G.R. No. 214490, January 13, 2016,

<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2016/january2016/214490.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
109. Id. at 11.

110. Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of Republic Act
No. 9165 as Amended by Republic Act No. 10640, sec. 1.B.5.
111. People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

112. People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
113. Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of Republic Act
No. 9165 as Amended by Republic Act No. 10640, sec. 1.A.1.11 provides:

  A.1.11. The chain of custody of evidence shall indicate the time and place of marking,
the names of officers who marked, inventoried, photographed and sealed the seized
items, who took custody and received the evidence from one officer to another within the
chain, and further indicating the time and date every time the transfer of custody of the
same evidence were made in the course of safekeeping until submitted to laboratory
personnel for forensic laboratory examination. The latter shall continue the chain as
required in paragraph B.5 below.

114. People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
115. See Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 as Amended by Republic Act No. 10640, sec. 1.A.1.11.

116. People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
117. See Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 as Amended by Republic Act No. 10640, sec. 1.A.1.11.

118. People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
119. See Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 as Amended by Republic Act No. 10640, sec. 1.A.1.11.

120. People v. Salcena, 676 Phil. 357, 381 (2011) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
121. PO1 Misa allegedly "died months after the incident," but no proof of his death is attached
to the petition. Prosecution also did not mention the date of his alleged death. See CA
rollo, p. 41.
122. Rollo, p. 5.
123. Id.

124. People v. Salcena, 676 Phil. 357 (2011) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].

125. Id. at 381.

126. Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

127. Id. at 588-589.

128. People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 129. Id. at 283.
130. People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 100 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

131. Rollo, p. 7.
132. Id. at 8.

133. Then Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, art. II, sec. 21 (a).

134. People v. Jaafar, G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017

<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2017/january2017/219829.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

135. Id. at 8.

136. Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of Republic Act
No. 9165 as Amended by Republic Act No. 10640, sec. 1.A.1.10.

137. CA rollo, pp. 64-71.

138. People v. Jaafar, G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017

<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2017/january2017/219829.pdf> 10 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

139. People v. Pagaduan, 641 Phil. 432, 449-450 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].

140. 744 Phil. 816 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

141. Id. at 827.

142. 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

143. Id. at 100.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com