G.R. No. 230228.  December 13, 2017.*

 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
MANUEL DELA ROSA y LUMANOG @ “MANNY,”
accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Sale of

Dangerous Drugs; Elements of.—The essential elements that have
to be duly established for a successful prosecution of offenses
involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs are: (1) the identity
of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment
therefor. Briefly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-
buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller
successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is
material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale
transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti.
Same; Same; Chain of Custody; Apart from showing that the
elements of sale are present, the fact that the dangerous drug
illegally sold is the same drug offered in court as exhibit must
likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that
needed to sustain a guilty verdict.—Aside from the inconsistent
dates of the conduct of the buy-bust operation, the Court finds
that the prosecution failed to sufficiently comply with the chain of
custody rule. In prosecuting both illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
conviction cannot be sustained if doubt persists on the identity of
said drugs. The identity of the dangerous drug must be
established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the
elements of sale are present, the fact that the dangerous drug
illegally sold is the same drug offered in court as exhibit must
likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that
needed to sustain a guilty verdict. 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/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record
of movements

_______________

*  THIRD DIVISION.

 
 
147

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 147

People vs. dela Rosa

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.
Same; Same; Same; In the amendment of Republic Act (RA) No.
10640, the apprehending team is now required to conduct a
physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in
(1) the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, (2) with an elected public official, and (3) a representative
of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof.—Interestingly, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was amended
recently by R.A. No. 10640, which became effective on July 15,
2014, and it essentially added the provisions contained in the IRR
with a few modifications, to wit: (1) The apprehending team
having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical
inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the
National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required
to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at
the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
Notably, in the amendment of R.A. No. 10640, the apprehending
team is now required to conduct a physical inventory of the seized
items and photograph the same in (1) the presence of the
accused or the persons from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, (2) with an elected public official and (3) a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the
media who shall be

 
 

148

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. dela Rosa

required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a

copy thereof. In the present case, as the alleged crime was
committed on March 29, 2009, then the provisions of Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR shall apply.
Same; Same; Same; As a rule, strict compliance with the
prescribed procedure under Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No.
9165 is required because of the illegal drug’s unique characteristic
that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open
to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or
otherwise.—As a rule, strict compliance with the prescribed
procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is required because
of the illegal drug’s unique characteristic that renders it
indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering,
alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. The
exception found in the IRR of R.A. 9165 comes into play when
strict compliance with the proscribed procedures is not observed.
This saving clause, however, applies only (1) where the
prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and
thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds, and (2)
when the prosecution established that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been
preserved. The prosecution, thus, loses the benefit of invoking
the presumption of regularity and bears the burden of proving —
with moral certainty — that the illegal drug presented in court is
the same drug that was confiscated from the accused during his
arrest.
 Same; Same; Same; Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) is clear that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place of the seizure or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
team.—Section 21 of the IRR is clear that the physical inventory
and photograph shall be conducted at the place of the seizure or
at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending team. In this case, the apprehending team did not
even bother to look for the nearest police station at the place of
seizure to conduct the inventory. Instead, they leisurely took their
time and travelled 54 kilometers away from the said place to
secure an inventory of the seized item.
Same; Same; Same; The apprehending officer is required to
mark the seized items — to truly ensure that they are the same
items

 
 

149

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 149

People vs. dela Rosa

that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in
evidence — and it should be done (1) in the presence of the
apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation.—In
the first link of the chain of custody, the apprehending officer
acquires possession of the suspected drug from the offender at the
time of the arrest. The apprehending officer is required to mark
the seized items — to truly ensure that they are the same items
that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in
evidence — and it should be done (1) in the presence of the
apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation. In
this case, the marking was not done at the place of the seizure;
rather it was done at the vehicle. While there may be exceptions
to the immediate marking of the seized item, even a less stringent
application of the requirement would not suffice in sustaining a
conviction in this case. Aside from marking, the seized items
should be placed in an envelope or an evidence bag unless the
type and quantity of these items require a different type of
handling and/or container. The evidence bag or container shall
accordingly be signed by the handling officer and turned over to
the next officer in the chain of custody. The purpose of placing the
seized item in an envelope or an evidence bag is to ensure that the
item is secured from tampering, especially when the seized item is
susceptible to alteration or damage.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
   Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

GESMUNDO,  J.:
 
On appeal is the Decision,1 dated August 12, 2016, of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06607,
which

_______________

1  Penned by Associate Justice Edwin Sorongon, with Associate Justice

Ricardo R. Rosario and Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-
Jacob, concurring; Rollo, pp. 2-13.

 
 

150

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. dela Rosa

affirmed the Decision2 dated November 19, 2013, of the

Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro,
Branch 39 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. CR-09-9515 finding
accused-appellant Manuel dela Rosa y Lumanog (accused-
appellant) guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
In an Information,3 dated May 3, 2009, accused-
appellant was charged with the crime of illegal sale of
marijuana weighing 0.682 gram. On July 22, 2009, he was
arraigned and he pleaded “not guilty.”4 Thereafter, trial
ensued.
 
Version of the Prosecution
 
The prosecution presented IO1 Noe Briguel (IO1
Briguel), PCI Rhea Fe Dela Cruz Alviar (PCI Alviar) and
IO1 Ed Bryan Echavaria (IO1 Echavaria) as its witnesses.
Their combined testimonies tended to establish the
following:
On March 28, 2009, at around 9:00 o’clock in the
morning, a confidential informant reported to PCI
Marijane Ojastro (PCI Ojastro) of the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency Regional Office IV-B (PDEA IV-B
Office) located at Filipiniana Complex, Calapan City, that
accused-appellant was selling marijuana at White Beach,
Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro. The informant said that
he could introduce an agent to accused-appellant as a
buyer of marijuana.
Based on the said information, PCI Ojastro directed the
conduct of a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant
with IO1 Mary Grace Cortez as the team leader. IO1
Briguel was designated as poseur-buyer using a P200.00
bill bearing serial numbers EC235898 and a P100.00 bill
bearing serial numbers QC609916, which were marked
with “NSB.”5 IO1

_______________

2  Penned by Judge Manual C. Luna, Jr.; CA Rollo, pp. 244-250.

3  Records, pp. 1-3.
4  Id., at p. 116.
5  Id., at p. 50.

 
 

151

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 151

People vs. dela Rosa

John Rick Jabano (IO1 Jabano) and IO1 Echavaria were

assigned as arresting officers. A Pre-Operation Report6 was
prepared.
The team left for Puerto Galera at around 1:00 o’clock in
the morning of March 29, 2009 and they stayed for a while
in Sabang. IO1 Briguel, however, testified that they arrived
at Puerto Galera on March 30, 2009. At about 3:00 o’clock
in the afternoon of that day, IO1 Briguel and the informant
proceeded to the Island Tattoo shop while the other
operatives positioned themselves in the area.
Arriving thereat, the informant introduced IO1 Briguel
to accused-appellant. IO1 Briguel asked accused-appellant,
a tattoo artist, to put a henna tattoo on his right shoulder.
As accused-appellant was doing the tattoo, IO1 Briguel
asked him: “Manny, pwede bang umiskor?” to which he
replied: “Meron.” IO1 Briguel told accused-appellant that
he was going to buy P300.00 worth of drugs, and handed
the marked money to accused-appellant, who, in turn,
handed to IO1 Briguel folded dried banana leaves
containing suspected dried marijuana leaves. Thus, IO1
Briguel made the prearranged signal of removing the
handkerchief wrapped around his head. Immediately, IO1
Jabano and IO1 Echavaria arrived and arrested accused-
appellant. IO1 Briguel frisked him and the marked money
was recovered from him.
Subsequently, accused-appellant was boarded into the
service vehicle of the PDEA to avoid any commotion at the
shop. While inside the vehicle, IO1 Briguel marked the
seized marijuana with his initials and the date of the
arrest. He then testified that he placed the suspect dried
marijuana leaves in his pocket.
The team then proceeded back to the PDEA IV-B Office
at Calapan City, which was 54 kilometers away from
Puerto Galera. There, IO1 Briguel conducted the
Inventory,7 which

_______________

6  Id., at p. 47.
7  Id., at p. 54.

 
 
152

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. dela Rosa

was witnessed by Barangay Chairperson Anacleto Vergara

(Brgy. Captain Vergara) and media representative Dennis
Nebrejo (Nebrejo). Photographs were likewise taken during
the marking and inventory of the seized item.
IOI Briguel then brought the suspected marijuana and
the Request for Laboratory Examination8 to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory Regional Office in
Camp Efigenio C. Navarro, Calapan City for forensic
examination. Based on Chemistry Report No. D-010-099
prepared by PCI Alviar, the specimen weighed 0.682 gram
and it tested positive for marijuana.
 
Version of the Defense
 
The defense presented accused-appellant as its sole
witness. He testified that on the date of the said arrest, he
was inside his tattoo shop, located beside a bar and
restaurant at White Beach, Puerto Galera, Oriental
Mindoro. While accused-appellant was attending to several
customers, a man suddenly approached him and asked if he
was Manny. When he replied in the affirmative, the said
man asked him to go with him. When accused-appellant
refused, the man pulled out a .45 caliber pistol from his
waist and threatened him that he would make a scene at
his shop. Reluctantly, accused-appellant accompanied the
man to a van parked away from his shop. While inside the
van, the man handcuffed accused-appellant and brought
him to the PDEA IV-B Office. For unknown reasons,
accused-appellant was incarcerated therein for a month
before a case was filed against him. He presupposed that
he was arrested and detained because he was associated
with a certain Cris Pelino, who was also arrested earlier
due to drug related charges.

_______________

 
8  Id., at p. 18.
9  Id., at p. 21.

 
 
153

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 153

People vs. dela Rosa

The RTC’s Ruling

 
In a decision, dated November 19, 2013, the RTC found
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable of the crime of
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Accordingly, the trial court sentenced accused-appellant to
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00.
The RTC held that the prosecution was able to prove the
identity of the buyer, the seller, the object and the
consideration in the illegal sale of the marijuana. It also
held that the delivery of the said drug by accused-appellant
and the payment thereof by IO1 Briguel during the buy-
bust operation were duly established. The RTC further
ruled that it was reasonable for the PDEA to conduct the
inventory of the seized item at their office in Calapan,
Mindoro to prevent a commotion at the place of the arrest.
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed before the CA
arguing in his Brief for the Accused-Appellant10 that: the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent
because IO1 Briguel testified that the buy-bust was
conducted on March 30, 2009, while IO1 Echavaria
testified that it was conducted on March 29, 2009; that the
sinumpaang salaysay of IO1 Briguel, IO1 Echavaria and
IO1 Jabano alleged that the buy-bust was conducted on
March 30, 2009; that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the confiscated item was not secured because it was merely
wrapped in a banana leaf and it was not placed in an
envelope or evidence bag; that there was an inconsistency
as to who received the confiscated drug at the crime
laboratory; and that the crime laboratory was not secured
at the time of the examination because any personnel and
policemen could enter the premises and even sleep there.
In their Brief for the Appellee,11 the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) countered that all the elements of
the crime of

_______________

10  CA Rollo, pp. 46-61.

11  Id., at pp. 78-88.

 
 
154

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. dela Rosa

illegal sale of dangerous drugs were established; that the

confiscated drug was properly inventoried in the presence
of accused-appellant, media representative, and an elected
official; that the custody of the drug was duly accounted
for; and that accused-appellant failed to refute the evidence
against him.
 
The CA’s Ruling
 
In its decision, dated August 12, 2016, the CA dismissed
the appeal. It held that the RTC correctly ruled that all the
elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
were duly proven. Likewise, the CA held that full faith and
credence must be given to the testimonies of the PDEA
agents pursuant to the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their official duty. It observed that the buy-
bust actually happened on March 29, 2009 based on the
evidentiary documents of the prosecution.
Further, the CA highlighted that the prosecution was
able to prove that there was substantial compliance with
the chain of custody rule. It stated that the drug was
marked by IO1 Briguel; that he also prepared the inventory
and PCI Ojastro prepared the request for laboratory
examination; that the marked item was delivered by IO1
Briguel to the crime laboratory; that it tested positive for
marijuana; and that the same marked item was presented
in court. The CA concluded that there was no compromise
in the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug.
Hence, this appeal.
 

Issue
 
WHETHER THE GUILT OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR
THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.

 
 

155

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 155

People vs. dela Rosa

In a Resolution,12 dated July 12, 2017, the Court

required the parties to submit their respective
supplemental briefs, if they so desire. In its Manifestation
(In Lieu of Supplemental Brief),13 dated August 24, 2017,
the OSG manifested it will no longer file a supplemental
brief considering that its Brief for the Appellee had already
amply discussed the assigned errors. In his Manifestation
(In Lieu of a Supplemental Brief),14 dated September 15,
2017, accused-appellant stated that he will no longer file a
supplemental brief since no new issue material to the case
that were not elaborated upon in his appellant’s brief were
discovered.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
The appeal has merit.
 
There are inconsistent
dates when the alleged

transaction took place

 
The essential elements that have to be duly established
for a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal
sale of dangerous drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer
and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.
Briefly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer
and the receipt of the marked money by the seller
successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is
material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale
transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti.15

_______________

 
12  Rollo, p. 18.
13  Id., at pp. 21-23.
14  Id., at pp. 32-34.
15  People v. Carlit, G.R. No. 227309, August 16, 2017, 837 SCRA 336.

 
 
156

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. dela Rosa

In this case, the Court agrees with accused-appellant

that the prosecution witnesses presented inconsistent dates
regarding the occurrence of the alleged drug transaction.
On March 3, 2010, IO1 Briguel, the poseur-buyer, testified
in his direct examination as follows:
 
Q:  Now, tell us Mr. Witness prior to the conduct of
the operation what did your office receive in
connection with the same, if any?
A:  On March 28, 2009 one of our confidential
informants went to our office and talked to our
OIC Marijane T. Ojastro and informed her that
he knew of somebody selling illegal drugs.
          x x x
Q:  After you have already formed the team, you as
the poseur-buyer, IO1 Jabano and IO1
Echavaria as arresting officers and Mary Grace
 Cortez the team leader, what did you agree on in
connection with [sic] effecting the operation?
A:  We set the date on within which we should be
proceeding to Puerto Galera to proceed with our
operation and we agreed that we should go to
the said place on March 30.
Q:  Before going to that place on March 30 what
preparations did you make if any?
A:  Prior to that date and if I am not mistaken that
was on March 29 we had a briefing regarding
the operation and we also prepared the
preoperational report ma’am.
          x x x
Q:   So tell us in that early morning of March 30,
how did you proceed to Puerto Galera?
A:  We proceeded to Puerto Galera onboard our
service the Toyota Revo, ma’am.16   (emphases
supplied)

_______________

 
16  TSN, dated March 3, 2010, pp. 5-9.

 
 
157

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 157

People vs. dela Rosa

It is clear from the testimony of IO1 Briguel that they

met their confidential informant in the PDEA office on
March 28, 2009. Then, on March 29, 2009, the buy-bust
team had a briefing regarding the operation and it was
then that they prepared the preoperation report. Finally,
on March 30, 2009, the team proceeded to Puerto Galera
for the buy-bust operation. The said testimony reflects the
statements in the IO1 Briguel’s Sinumpaang Salaysay,17
dated April 1, 2009. Likewise, the said dates are reflected
in the Magkasanib na Sinumpaang Salaysay,18 similarly
dated April 1, 2009, of IO1 Jabano and IO1 Echavaria.
Later, on September 7, 2010, IOI Briguel retracted his
statement and, instead, insisted that the buy-bust
operation occurred on March 29, 2009 based on his
Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay,19 to wit:
 
 Q:  My question now, Mr. Witness, why did you
have to execute a Karagdagang Sinumpaang
Salaysay when you have already executed a
sworn statement with respect to this case?
A:  When we filed the case we found out that what
is written during the operation was March 30.
The date of operation was March 29.
Q:  Now, what was the date indicated in all other
documents aside from your Sinumpaang
Salaysay?
A:   Not all, ma’m.
Q:    So, you are telling us that the correct date of
your operation was March 29, 2009 but what
you have indicated in your Sinumpaang
Salaysay is March 30 as the date of your
operation. Now my question is, in what other
documents did this March 30, 2009 appeared?

_______________

 
17  Records, pp. 6-7.
18  Id., at pp. 12-13.
19  Id., at p. 64.

 
 
158

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. dela Rosa

A:  In the laboratory result wherein March 29 was

indicated.
Q:  So you are telling us that it is only in your
original initial Sinumpaang Salaysay that
March 30 was indicated?
A:  Yes, ma’m, and the Sinumpaang Salaysay of
the two (2) arresting officers. 20
 
The Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay of IO1 Briguel,
however, contains questionable circumstances. The said
document was simply dated April 2009 without indicating
the exact day of execution. It was also notarized on April 2,
2009. Assuming arguendo that the said Karagdagang
Sinumpaang Salaysay was notarized on April 2, 2009, then
it is dubious as to why IO1 Briguel did not mention the
said document at all when he initially testified on March 3,
2010. It was only on September 7, 2010 that IO1 Briguel
suddenly remembered that he executed such crucial
affidavit. The only plausible explanation is that the
incomplete affidavit did not exist as of March 3, 2010.
The Court is of the view that the Karagdagang
Sinumpaang Salaysay was only executed as a mere
afterthought to conceal the inconsistent dates of the buy-
bust operation indicated in IO1 Briguel’s testimony on
March 3, 2010, his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated April 1,
2009, and the Magkasanib na Sinumpaang Salaysay,
similarly dated April 1, 2009, of IO1 Jabano and IO1
Echavaria. Accordingly, there is doubt as to the actual date
of the buy-bust operation; whether it was done on March 29
or March 30, 2009.
Glaringly, the OSG neither addressed nor explained the
discrepancy of these dates. Further, the prosecution was
remiss of its duty because it did not immediately act to
rectify its mistake. It was only on September 7, 2010, when
IO1 Briguel testified, that the prosecution attempted to
explain

_______________

20  TSN, dated September 7, 2010, pp. 5-6.

 
 
159

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 159

People vs. dela Rosa

the inconsistent dates, which existed as early as April 1,

2009. The prosecution, however, chose to rely on the
Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay of IO1 Briguel, which
contained doubtful dates of execution and notarization.
 
The chain of custody rule
 
Aside from the inconsistent dates of the conduct of the
buy-bust operation, the Court finds that the prosecution
failed to sufficiently comply with the chain of custody rule.
In prosecuting both illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
conviction cannot be sustained if doubt persists on the
identity of said drugs. The identity of the dangerous drug
must be established with moral certainty. Apart from
showing that the elements of sale are present, the fact that
the dangerous drug illegally sold is the same drug offered
in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the
same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty
verdict.21
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/confiscation 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.22
As the means of ensuring the establishment of the chain
of custody, Section 21(1) of RA No. 9165 specifies that:

_______________

21   People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 208095, September 20, 2017, 840
SCRA 327.
22  Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of
2002.

 
 
160

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. dela Rosa

(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) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 complements Section
21(1) of RA No. 9165, to wit:

(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 noncompliance 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.

 
Based on the foregoing, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165
requires the apprehending team, after seizure and
confiscation, to immediately conduct a physically inventory;
and photograph the same in the presence of (1) the
accused or the persons from whom such items were
confiscated and/or
 
 
161

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 161

People vs. dela Rosa

 
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) a
representative from the media and (3) the DOJ, and
(4) any elected public official who shall be required
to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof.23
In addition, Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165
provides 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. It further states that noncompliance with these
requirements shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over the confiscated items provided
that such noncompliance were under justifiable
grounds and the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer or team.24
Interestingly, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was amended
recently by R.A. No. 10640, which became effective on July
15, 2014, and it essentially added the provisions contained
in the IRR with a few modifications, to wit:

(1)  The apprehending team having initial custody and

control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized
items and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the persons from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, with an elected public official and a representative
of the National Prosecution Service or the media who

_______________

23  People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 228; 745 SCRA 221, 236 (2015).
24  People v. Dela Cruz, 591 Phil. 259, 271; 570 SCRA 273, 285 (2008).

 
 
162

162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. dela Rosa

shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be

given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory
and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or
at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures:
Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
 not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over
said items.

 
Notably, in the amendment of R.A. No. 10640, the
apprehending team is now required to conduct a physical
inventory. of the seized items and photograph the same in
(1) the presence of the accused or the persons from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected
public official, and (3) 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. In the present case, as the alleged crime
was committed on March 29, 2009, then the provisions of
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR shall apply.
 
The apprehending team
did not comply with Sec-

tion 21 of R.A. No. 9165

and its IRR

 
The records of the case show that the physical inventory
of the confiscated drug and the photographs of the same
where only done in the presence of the accused-appellant,
Brgy. Captain Vergara and media representative Nebrejo.
Clearly, a representative of the DOJ, as required by Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165, was not present during the inventory
of the seized item.
 
 
163

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 163

People vs. dela Rosa

More importantly, the apprehending team did not

immediately conduct the physical inventory and the taking
of the photographs at the time the suspected drug was
confiscated or at the nearest police station. Instead, they
travelled fifty-four (54) kilometers from Puerto Galera, the
place of the seizure, to Calapan City before they conducted
the inventory of the seized drug.
 
The prosecution failed
to provide a justifiable

ground for the non-

compliance of Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165
 
As a rule, strict compliance with the prescribed
procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is required
because of the illegal drug’s unique characteristic that
renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily
open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by
accident or otherwise.
The exception found in the IRR of R.A. 9165 comes into
play when strict compliance with the proscribed procedures
is not observed. This saving clause, however, applies only
(1) where the prosecution recognized the procedural
lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable
grounds, and (2) when the prosecution established
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence seized had been preserved. The prosecution,
thus, loses the benefit of invoking the presumption of
regularity and bears the burden of proving — with moral
certainty — that the illegal drug presented in court is the
same drug that was confiscated from the accused during
his arrest.25
In this case, the prosecution failed to recognize its
procedural lapses and give a justifiable ground for the
noncompli-

_______________

25   Supra note 15, citing People v. Cayas, G.R. No. 206888, July 4,
2016, 795 SCRA 459.

 
 

164

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. dela Rosa

ance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Particularly, they

were not able to explain the absence of a representative of
the DOJ and the distant conduct of the inventory of the
seized item. IO1 Echavaria attempted to explain that the
said inventory was not done at the place of the arrest at
Puerto Galera because they could not secure a
representative of the media or the DOJ and, thus, went
back to their office in Calapan City.26 Nevertheless, upon
their arrival in Calapan City, there was still no
representative from the DOJ to witness the inventory of
the confiscated item.
On the other hand, the witnesses of the prosecution
attempted to explain the conduct of the inventory of the
seized item fifty-four (54) kilometers away from the place of
the arrest. IO1 Briguel testified as follows:
 
Q: Did you bother to coordinate with the barangay
officials of White Beach, Barangay Isidro, Puerto
Galera?
A:   As I recall, no sir.
Q:  In other words Mr. Witness, you are telling this
Honorable Court that you implemented this buy-
bust operation 54 kilometers away from Calapan
City and in the actual site, you did not bother to
coordinate with the barangay official of the place
where you conducted your buy-bust operation.
A:   No, sir.
Q:   What do you mean “no?”
A:  We did not coordinate because that was the
decision of our team leader.
Q:  So, in other words, your team leader
instructed you not to coordinate and
instead do the inventory when you
travelled back 54 kilometers away to
Calapan, is it not correct?
A:   Yes, sir. 27 (emphasis supplied)

_______________

26  TSN, dated August 3, 2011, p. 11.

27  TSN, dated February 2, 2011, pp. 13-14.

 
 
165

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 165

People vs. dela Rosa

In the same manner, IO1 Echavaria testified on the

subject matter as follows:
Q:  Now, since you were there already in the early
morning of that date, can you please tell the
Honorable Court whether or not you coordinate
with any member of the media or barangay
 official for the purpose of that buy-bust
operation?
A: We did the coordination only during the
inventory to meet the requirements.
Q:  So in other words, during the eight (8) long
hours, you did not bother to call any barangay
official nor did you bother to secure the
representative from the media while you were in
Puerto Galera?
A:  Our team leader deemed it no longer necessary
to coordinate with the media or with the
barangay officials. It was only during the
inventory of the confiscated items that we did
the coordination with such agencies.
Q: So can we be clarified as to where you conducted
this inventory?
A:  In our regional office, Sir.
Q:  In Calapan City?
A:  Yes Sir.
Q:  Why did you not conduct that in Puerto
Galera?
A:  Because there were already many people
in the exact place so we decided to do the
inventory in our office.
  x x x
COURT:
      Questions from the Court.
Q:  During your cross-examination you stated that
it was not practical to conduct the inventory at
the scene and instead you made the inventory at
your office. What do you mean by it is not
practical?
A:  Your Honor because during that particular
situation there were many people around so we
could
 
 
166

166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. dela Rosa

only do the marking[s] but we could not do the

inventory at that place.
Q:   What do you mean by it is not practical?
A:   Because we could not secure the presence of the
Witnesses if we have done the inventory in the
 exact scene where the buy-bust operation
happened, Your Honor.
Q:  Why can you not conduct the inventory at the
scene and at the presence of the media and the
DOJ representative?
A:  Your Honor because we could not completely do
the inventory at the scene if we would first call
the representative of the media and the
barangay official so we just did the marking on
that place and did the inventory in the office.
Q:  And how far is your office from the place of the
incident?
A:   I could not exactly determine. It took us about
an hour and a half to reach our office.
Q:  And in this particular case did you not prepare
the inventory in Puerto Galera but instead
prepared it in your office in Calapan, is it not?
A:   Yes, Your Honor.
Q:  Would it not be impractical for the media,
the DOJ representative and the barangay
official to travel from Puerto Galera to
Calapan City in your office and witness the
preparation of the inventory?
A: Because in the preparation of the
inventory we needed some witnesses.
Q:  Who are these witnesses that you are referring
to that you needed to contact for the inventory?
A:  The barangay official, media representative and
DOJ representative, your Honor. 28 (emphases
supplied)

_______________

 
28  TSN, dated December 13, 2011, pp. 4-12.

 
 
167

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 167

People vs. dela Rosa

As can be gleaned from the witnesses’ testimony, the

excuses they proffered to justify the distant conduct of the
inventory fifty-four (54) kilometers away from the place of
seizure, are: (1) it was the team leader’s discretion to
conduct the inventory in Calapan City; (2) to avoid
commotion at the place of seizure; and (3) they could not
secure the witnesses required by law in the said place.
The Court finds that these excuses are unmeritorious.
First, Section 21 of the IRR is clear that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place of
the seizure or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending team. In this case, the
apprehending team did not even bother to look for the
nearest police station at the place of seizure to conduct the
inventory. Instead, they leisurely took their time and
travelled 54 kilometers away from the said place to secure
an inventory of the seized item.
Second, another reason stated by the prosecution
witness — that the inventory was done in Calapan to avoid
a commotion at the place of the seizure — is unavailing.
Evidently, there is no need to travel fifty four (54)
kilometers away from Puerto Galera simply to avoid a
commotion. As stated in IO1 Echavaria’s testimony, the
apprehending team had eight (8) hours to prepare before
the operation was conducted and they could have easily
identified the nearest police station in Puerto Galera for
the inventory of the seized item. Certainly, the PDEA office
in Calapan City is not the nearest police station in Puerto
Galera.
Third, the apprehending officers allegedly travelled all
the way back to Calapan City because only there could they
secure the witnesses required by law. However, as
discussed above, even when they travelled 54 kilometers to
their office, they still failed to complete all the witnesses
needed during the inventory. The RTC even observed that
it was impractical for the media representative, DOJ
representative and the elected official to travel from Puerto
Galera all the way to Calapan City to simply witness the
inventory. Indeed, the
 
 

168

168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. dela Rosa

inventory could have been done at the nearest police

station in Puerto Galera and the required witnesses could
have conveniently attended thereat.
In Dela Riva v. People,29 the Court acquitted the
accused-appellant therein because although the buy-bust
operation occurred in Subic, Zambales, the apprehending
team conducted the marking, inventory and photographing
of the seized item in Quezon City, which was several
kilometers away. The prosecution could not give any
justifiable reason for the unusually distant conduct of the
physical inventory.
 
The prosecution failed to
establish that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the
seized item was preserved
 
Aside from failing to provide a justifiable ground for the
noncompliance of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the
prosecution also failed to establish that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item was preserved.
In the first link of the chain of custody, the
apprehending officer acquires possession of the suspected
drug from the offender at the time of the arrest. The
apprehending officer is required to mark the seized items
— to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter
the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence —
and it should be done (1) in the presence of the
apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon
confiscation.30 In this case, the marking was not done at
the place of the seizure; rather it was done at the vehicle.
While there may be exceptions to the immediate marking
of the seized item,31 even a less stringent application of the
requirement would not suffice in sustaining a conviction in
this case.

_______________

29  769 Phil. 872; 771 SCRA 39 (2015).

30  People v. Martinez, 652 Phil. 347, 377; 637 SCRA 791, 818 (2010).
31  See People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil. 520; 603 SCRA 510 (2009).

 
 

169

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 169

People vs. dela Rosa

Aside from marking, the seized items should be placed

in an envelope or an evidence bag unless the type and
quantity of these items require a different type of handling
and/or container. The evidence bag or container shall
accordingly be signed by the handling officer and turned
over to the next officer in the chain of custody.32 The
purpose of placing the seized item in an envelope or an
evidence bag is to ensure that the item is secured from
tampering, especially when the seized item is susceptible to
alteration or damage.
Here, as shown by its photographs,33 the seized
marijuana was simply wrapped in a dried banana leaf;
while the marking was merely written on a strip of paper
that was attached to the seized item. Evidently, the
confiscated marijuana was not placed in a secured
container. IO1 Briguel testified as to how he handled the
specimen, viz.:
 
Q:  Now, Mr. Witness, going back to the specimen
which was earlier presented to you by the
government prosecutor. How did you secure the
dried marijuana leaves after you bought that
from the body of the accused?
A:  I took it from him and placed it in my pocket,
sir.
Q:  But insofar as the way you packed it, it appears
that it is wrapped with banana leaves and what
did you do after you packed it with banana
leaves?
A:  It was already packed when we bought it, sir.
Q:  Did you not bother to put the same in a
secured sealed container?
A:  We did not bring any, sir, so I just placed it
in our [sic] pocket.
Q:  So, in other words when you received the
unsecure specimen you did not bother to make it
sure that the integrity of the specimen will be
protected by putting it in a seal (sic) container or
plastic sachet?

_______________

32  Supra note 30.

33  Records, p. 46.

 
 
170

170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 People vs. dela Rosa

A:   After marking the said specimen and when we

were already in our way home we placed it in a
plastic container, sir.
Q:  You said that you placed it in a plastic to secure
the specimen. But where is the sealed plastic,
Mr. Witness?
A:  When we brought this specimen in the crime
laboratory and then submitted the same to the
office of the prosecutor they already removed it
from the plastic, sir.
Q:  In other words, you did not bother to put your
initial on the plastic in which you placed this
specimen?
A:   None, sir.
Q:   Why did you not do that?
A:   I was notable to do it sir. 34 (emphasis supplied)
 
From the above testimony, it can be observed that when
IO1 Briguel seized the marijuana wrapped in dried banana
leaves, he simply placed the said item inside his pocket
without securing it in a sealed container. Evidently, due to
the poor packaging of the item, it is susceptible to
tampering or alteration. Realizing his damaging testimony,
IO1 Briguel suddenly changed his tune and stated that he
allegedly placed the confiscated item in a plastic container.
However, the purported plastic container was neither
presented in evidence nor was it marked by IO1 Briguel.
Glaringly, the photographs, Inventory35 and the Chemistry
Report No. D-010-0936 demonstrate that the seized
marijuana was merely wrapped in a dried banana leaf and
was not secured in a plastic container.
Further, there are also irregularities in the third link of
the chain of custody. In the said link, there must be a
delivery by

_______________

34  TSN, dated February 2, 2011, pp. 14-16.

35  Id., at p. 54.
36  Id., at p. 21.

 
 

171

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 171

 People vs. dela Rosa

the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic

chemist. Once the seized drugs arrive at the forensic
laboratory, it will be the laboratory technician who will test
and verify the nature of the substance.37
In this case, while IO1 Briguel claims that he delivered
the confiscated item to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp
Efigenio C. Navarro, Calapan City, it was not clear who
received the confiscated drug thereat. On direct
examination, PCI Alviar testified as follows:
 
PROSECUTOR OLIVAR
Q:  Madam Witness, in this letter request the
one [sic] received the said specimen on
behalf of the Regional Crime Laboratory is
one PO1 Carreon. Would you confirm that
PO1 Carreon is connected with your office?
A:   Yes, ma’m.
   x x x
Q:  May we know if there is also SPO1 Watson in
that crime lab?
A:   Yes, ma’m.
Q:   What is his position in that crime laboratory?
A:   He is now assigned at Mamburao, ma’m.  
Q:  But when he was with the Crime Laboratory
what was his position?
A:  Macro itching technician, ma’m.
Q: And also authorized in receiving specimen being
submitted?
A:   Yes, ma’m.
Q:  And how about PSI Niduaza, Jr.? Is he also
connected with your office?
A:   Yes, ma’m. He is our forensic chemical officer.  

_______________

37  Supra note 23 at p. 237; p. 245.

 
 
172

172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. dela Rosa
 Q:  From whom did you received that specimen for
examination?
A:   From PSI Ernesto Niduaza, ma’m.
Q:   Who received the same from PO1 Carreon?
A:   It was received by PSI Ernesto Niduaza, ma’m.
38
 
On cross-examination, however, PCI Alviar presented a
different chain of custody.
 
Q:   When it was delivered to the crime laboratory
what time was that when it was delivered to the
crime laboratory.
A:   Our office received the letter request based on
the stamp marked appearing on the lower
portion 2300H of March 29, 2009, ma’m.
Q:   That is eleven o’clock in the evening?
A:   Yes, ma’m.
Q:  And are you the chemist on duty during
that time?
A:  Yes, ma’m. It was received by PSI Ernesto
Niduaza.
Q:  It was received by PSI Niduaza because during
the time when it was received you were not the
one on duty, is it not?
A:    I cannot remember. I do not know if we have
SOCO response during that time, sir.
Q:    But is it not that the chemist on duty at the
PNP Crime Laboratory in Suqui is either you or
Engr. Niduaza being the two chemist available
thereat?
A:   Yes, sir.
Q:   So, if Engr. Niduaza is present logically it (sic)
meaning to say that you were not around during
that time because Engr. Niduaza is on duty?
A:    No, sir.

_______________

38  TSN, dated November 9, 2010, pp. 7-9.

 
 
173

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 173

People vs. dela Rosa
 Q:  But you cannot remember having been around
that time?
A:    Yes, sir. 39
 
From the testimony, it can be gathered that PCI Alviar
initially testified that the specimen was received by PO1
Carreon; that PO1 Carreon, SPO1 Watson and PSI
Niduaza were authorized to handle the specimen; that PCI
Alviar acquired the item from PSI Niduaza. Then on cross-
examination, she then stated that it was PSI Niduaza that
actually received the same; that the latter was present in
the crime laboratory but was not on duty; and that she was
on duty but cannot remember whether she was present at
the crime laboratory. Accordingly, there is doubt as to who
actually received the seized item from IO1 Briguel. Within
the crime laboratory, the said specimen was handed from
one person to another. It was even received by an officer
who was not on duty at that time. The changing of hands of
the specimen is precarious considering that it was not
placed in a secured container.
Likewise, as properly pointed out by accused-appellant,
the arrangement of the PNP Crime Laboratory therein is
problematic based on the testimony of PCI Alviar, to wit:
 
Q:  Is it not that the PNP Crime Laboratory is
composed of three separate rooms, the PNP
Crime Laboratory in Suqui?
A:  We do not have permanent room, sir.
x x x
Q:  The laboratory itself, the sink where you
conduct your examination was located at the
middle because the first portion of your office is
the receiving area where there are many tables
side by side, the second part is this portion
where there is a one way mirror?
A:   Yes, sir.

_______________

39  Id., at pp. 14-15.

 
 

174

174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. dela Rosa
 Q:   And there is a door to enter that?
A:   Yes, sir.
Q:  And the third part is the storage room or
evidence room?
A:   Yes, sir.
Q:   It is not that inside that second part, the
sink, where you conduct your examination,
there is a double deck bed?
A:   Yes, sir.
Q:  And it is where some of your personnel
and even some policemen would sleep
there, day in and day out whenever there
is operation?
A:   Yes, sir.40
 
PCI Alviar admitted that the room where the drugs are
inspected had a double deck bed where the personnel and
the policemen would sleep when there is a police operation.
These persons can enter the forensic room and there is a
possibility they could contaminate the evidence. Surely, the
reliability of the seized drugs cannot be preserved when
there are various persons in the forensic room who are not
even connected with the crime laboratory. The testimony of
PCI Alviar falls short of the requirement that the intergrity
and evidentiary value of the seized drug must be preserved.
 
Conclusion
 
In fine, the Court finds that there are several errors in
the prosecution of the case. There were inconsistent dates
on the conduct of the alleged buy-bust operation because of
the conflicting statements and affidavits of the prosecution
witnesses. Likewise, the requirement under Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 was not complied with because a
representative of the DOJ was not present at the time of
the inventory of the

_______________

40  Id., at pp. 15-17.

 
 

175

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 175

People vs. dela Rosa
seized item. Further, the inventory was done fifty-four (54)
kilometres away from the place of seizure. No justifiable
reason was provided for the noncompliance with Section
21.
The apprehending officers also failed to properly
safekeep the seized item because they did not place it in a
secured container. Finally, the forensic chemist did not give
a consistent statement as to who received the seized item
and that the crime laboratory’s arrangement made it
possible for other personnel to contaminate the evidence.
Accordingly, the prosecution failed to prove that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated item were
preserved.
Given the substantive flaws and procedural lapses,
serious uncertainty hangs over the identity of the seized
marijuana that the prosecution presented as evidence
before the Court. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully
prove the elements of the crime charged, creating a
reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of accused-
appellant.41
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision
dated August 12, 2016, of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 06607 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant Manuel
dela Rosa who is accordingly ACQUITTED of the crime
charged against him and ordered immediately
RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for some
other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED
to implement this decision and to inform this Court of the
date of the actual release from confinement of the accused-
appellant within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Leonen and Martires, JJ.,

concur.

_______________

41  Supra note 23 at p. 239; p. 248.

 
 

176

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. dela Rosa
 Bersamin, J., On Official Leave.

Appeal granted, judgment reversed and set aside.

Accused-appellant Manuel dela Rosa acquitted and ordered
immediately released.

Notes.—The failure to photograph and conduct physical

inventory of the seized items are not fatal to the case
against the accused, and do not ipso facto render
inadmissible in evidence the items seized. (People vs.
Tamaño, 812 SCRA 203 [2016])
Even though there was no inventory of the items at the
place where the buy-bust was held, this will not render
appellants’ arrest illegal or the items seized from them
inadmissible. (Id.)

 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.