3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

 
 

G.R. No. 226485.  June 6, 2018.*

 
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee,  vs.  BERNIE DELOCIEMBRE  y  ANDALES and
DHATS ADAM y DANGA, accused-appellants.

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; An appeal in

criminal cases opens the entire case for review and it is the duty of
the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the
appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.—At
the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases
opens the entire case for review and it is the duty of the reviewing
tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed
judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. “The appeal
confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and
renders such court competent to examine the records, revise the
judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper
provision of the penal law.”
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs; Elements of.—In this case, accused-appellants
were charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs,
defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Case
law states that in every prosecution for Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs, the following elements must be proven with moral
certainty: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object,
and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment. Moreover, it is likewise essential that the identity of
the prohibited drugs be established beyond reasonable doubt,
considering that the prohibited drug itself forms an integral part
of the corpus delicti of the crime. The prosecution has to show an
unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drugs so as to
obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous
drugs on account of switching, “planting,” or contamination of
evidence. Accordingly, the prosecution must be able to account for
each link of the chain of custody from the moment the illegal
drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of
the crime.

_______________

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

*  SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION.

 
 
350

350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delociembre

Same; Same; Chain of Custody Rule; In the case of People v.

Mendoza, 727 SCRA 113 (2014), the Supreme Court (SC) stressed
that “without the insulating presence of the representative from the
media or the Department of Justice (DOJ), or any elected public
official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the
evils of switching, ‘planting’ or contamination of the evidence that
had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of Republic
Act (RA) No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared
their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the
seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that were evidence
herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the
trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.—Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the police
officers must follow when handling the seized drugs in order to
preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. Under the said
section, prior to its amendment by RA 10640, the apprehending
team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and
confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph
the seized items in the presence of the accused or the
person from whom the items were seized, or his
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 of the same, and the seized drugs
must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-
four (24) hours from confiscation for examination. In the case of
People v. Mendoza, 727 SCRA 113 (2014), the Court stressed that
“[w]ithout the insulating presence of the representative
from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official
during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the
evils of switching, ‘planting’ or contamination of the
evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the
regime of [RA] 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared
their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of
the seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that were
evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely
affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

accused. Indeed, the x x x presence of such witnesses would have

preserved an unbroken chain of custody.”
Same; Same; Same; The said inventory and photography may
be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that
noncompliance 

 
 
351

VOL. 865, JUNE 6, 2018 351

People vs. Delociembre

with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act

(RA) No. 9165, — under justifiable grounds — will not render void
and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items so long
as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team.—Under
varied field conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not always be possible. In
fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165
— which is now crystallized into statutory law with the passage of
RA 10640 — provides that the said inventory and photography
may be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that
noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165 — under justifiable grounds — will
not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over
the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer or team. In other words, the failure of
the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid
out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR does not ipso
facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and
invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that:
(a) there is justifiable ground for noncompliance; and (b) the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved. In People v. Almorfe, 617 SCRA 52 (2010), the Court
stressed that for the above saving clause to apply, the
prosecution must explain the reasons behind the
procedural lapses, and that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been
preserved. Also, in People v. De Guzman, 616 SCRA 652 (2010),
it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for
noncompliance must be proven as a fact, because the

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they

even exist.
Same; Same; Same; While the requisite inventory of the seized
drugs was conducted in the presence of accused-appellants and an
elected public official, the same was not done in the presence of the
representatives from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ).—In this case, the Court finds that the police officers
committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of
custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and
evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from accused-
appellants. An examina-

 
 
352

352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delociembre

tion of the records reveals that while the requisite inventory

of the seized drugs was conducted in the presence of accused­-
appellants and an elected public official, the same was not done in
the presence of the representatives from the media and the DOJ.
More significantly, the apprehending officers failed to proffer a
plausible explanation therefor. During his cross-examination, IO1
Avenido admitted that the DOJ office is near the place of arrest,
as in fact, it was only a five (5)-minute walk therefrom. However,
when asked if he bothered to pass by it to secure a DOJ
representative, he did not provide a categorical answer, and
instead, disavowed responsibility therefor, claiming that there
were other members of the buy-bust team who were assigned to
accomplish such task.
Same; Same; Same; The procedure in Section 21, Article II of
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and
cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or
worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug
suspects.—Without a doubt, procedural lapses committed by the
police officers, which were unfortunately unacknowledged and
unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. The
procedure in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of
substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple
procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the
conviction of illegal drug suspects. As such, since the prosecution
in this case failed to provide justifiable grounds for noncompliance
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the acquittal of accused-

appellants is perforce in order.
Prosecutors; Prosecutors are strongly reminded that they have
the positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth
in Section 21[, Article II] of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, as
amended.—Prosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the
positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in
Section 21[, Article II] of RA 9165, as amended. As such, they
must have the initiative to not only acknowledge but also
justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure
during the proceedings before the trial court. Since
compliance with this procedure is determinative of the integrity
and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and ultimately, the fate
of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the
same was not raised, or even

 
 
353

VOL. 865, JUNE 6, 2018 353

People vs. Delociembre

threshed out in the court/s below, would not preclude the

appellate court, including this Court, from fully examining the
records of the case if only to ascertain whether the procedure had
been completely complied with, and if not, whether justifiable
reasons exist to excuse any deviation. If no such reasons exist,
then it is the appellate court’s bounden duty to acquit the accused,
and perforce, overturn a conviction.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the

Supreme Court.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
   The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
   Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

RESOLUTION
 
PERLAS-BERNABE,  J.:
 
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration1 filed
by accused-appellants Bernie Delociembre y Andales
(Bernie) and Dhats Adam y Danga (Dhats; collectively,
accused-appellants) assailing the Resolution2 dated April
17, 2017 of the Court, which affirmed the Decision3 dated
March 31, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

CR-H.C. No. 07231 finding accused-appellants guilty

beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165,4 oth-

_______________

1  Dated July 20, 2017; Rollo, pp. 32-38.

2   Id., at pp. 30-31. Signed by Division Clerk of Court Edgar O.
Aricheta.
3   Id., at pp. 2-11. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta,
with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (now a member of the Court) and
Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.
4   Entitled “An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known as the

Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as Amended,

 
 

354

354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delociembre

erwise known as “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs

Act of 2002.”
 
The Facts
 
The instant case stemmed from an Information5 filed
before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 78
(RTC), docketed as Crim. Case No. Q-10-163376, charging
accused-appellants of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs, the accusatory portion of which states:

That on or about the 7th  day of April, 2010, in Quezon

City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping each other, without
lawful authority did then and there willfully and unlawfully
sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act
as broker in the said transaction, a dangerous drug, to wit:
Five (5) pieces of transparent heat-sealed plastic sachet
marked as “EXH-A-1 MPA 4/7/2010, EXH-A-2 MPA
4/7/2010, EXH-A-3 MPA 4/7/2010, EXH-A-4 MPA
4/7/2010[”] and “EXH-A-5 MPA 4/7/2010” with twenty-one
point forty-one twenty-nine (21.4129) grams of white

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine

Hydrochloride also known as “shabu,” a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6

The prosecution alleged that on April 7, 2010, a buy-bust team

composed of Senior Officer II Christopher Macairap7  (SOII
Macairap), Inspector Officer I Junef Avenido (IO1 Avenido), and
IO1 Renata Reyes (IO1 Reyes) was organized to conduct an
entrapment operation against Bernie, alias “Axe,”

_______________

Providing Funds therefor, and for Other Purposes,” approved on June 7, 2002.
5  Dated April 12, 2010. Records, pp. 1-2.
6  Id., at p. 1.
7  “Macalrap” in some parts of the Records.

 
 
355

VOL. 865, JUNE 6, 2018 355

People vs. Delociembre

who was reportedly “operating” within the area of Quezon

City.8 Accordingly, SOII Macairap instructed their
informant to purchase twenty-five (25) grams of shabu
worth P150,000.00 from Bernie and arrange a meeting
with him, to which the latter agreed. Thus, at around 2:30
in the afternoon, the buy-bust team, together with the
informant, proceeded to the target area in NIA Road,
Quezon City. Upon arriving, the informant introduced IO1
Avenido, the designated poseur-buyer, to Bernie and his
companion, Dhats. Dhats then handed over a folded
cardboard paper with a Lotto 6/49 logo containing a white
crystalline substance to IO1 Avenido, who, in turn, paid
Bernie using the marked money. As Bernie was about to
count the money, IO1 Avenido executed the prearranged
signal by taking off his cap, and consequently, accused-
appellants were apprehended. Shortly after, the team left
the area and proceeded to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) office. Thereat, the requisite
marking and inventory were done in the presence of
Barangay Kagawad Jose Ruiz, Jr. and accused-appellants,
while SOII Macairap took pictures of the same.
Subsequently, IO1 Avenido delivered the seized drugs to
the PDEA laboratory where they were received by Forensic

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

Chemical Officer Jappeth Santiago (FCO Santiago) who

confirmed that they tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride and meferonex, a dangerous drug.
Consequently, FCO Santiago turned over the said items to
the custody of the trial court.9
For their part, accused-appellants raised the defenses of
denial and alibi. Bernie claimed that at around twelve (12)
o’clock in the afternoon of April 7, 2010, while he was at
home preparing his son for school, he noticed that PDEA
agents Renato Reyes and Roy Allan, the alleged bosses of
his brother “Axe,” were knocking at the latter’s door. When
asked about

_______________

8  TSN dated November 9, 2010, pp. 4-5. See also Rollo, p. 3.

9   See Records, pp. 318-322. See also  Rollo, pp. 3-4; and Chemistry
Report No. PDEA-DD010-130 dated April 8, 2010, Records, p. 96
(including dorsal portion).

 
 
356

356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delociembre

the whereabouts of “Axe,” Bernie told them that “Axe” left

for Aklan to visit his wife. Subsequently, they left but came
back shortly to invite Bernie to the PDEA office. After
joining the agents in the PDEA office, Bernie was again
asked of “Axe’s” whereabouts. In the interim, he noticed
some illegal drugs placed on the table and saw Dhats for
the first time. After being questioned, Bernie was
purportedly taken to the city hall for inquest.10
Meanwhile, Dhats maintained that at around twelve
(12) o’clock in the afternoon of even date, he and his wife
were having lunch at their house when six (6) armed men
suddenly arrived in search of “Axe,” whom he allegedly
knew by name. He was then handcuffed and brought to the
PDEA office where he was joined by Bernie. Thereafter, he
was taken to Camp Crame for medical examination.
According to Dhats, IO1 Avenido demanded the amount of
P100,000.00 for his release, but since he could not produce
the same, he was brought to the city hall for inquest.11
 
The RTC’s Ruling
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

 
12
In a Judgment   dated December 12, 2014, the RTC
found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing each
of them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of P500,000.00.13  It held that the prosecution
proved all the elements of the crime charged, as it was able
to show that: (a) an illegal sale of shabu actually took place
during a valid buy-bust operation; (b) accused-appellants
were positively identified in open court as the malefactors;
and (c) the forensic examination of the seized drugs yielded
positive results for

_______________

10  Id., at pp. 4-5.

11  Id., at p. 5.
12   Records, pp. 317-328. Penned by Presiding Judge Fernando T.
Sagun, Jr.
13  Id., at pp. 327-328.

 
 
357

VOL. 865, JUNE 6, 2018 357

People vs. Delociembre

the presence of  methamphetamine hydrochloride  and  meferonex.

Moreover, it ruled that accused-appellants’ unsubstantiated
defense of denial and  alibi  could not prevail over the positive
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who had no ill motive to
testify against them.14
Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed15 to the CA.
 
The CA’s Ruling
 
16
In a Decision   dated March 31, 2016, the CA
affirmed  in toto  the Judgment of the RTC.17  It found,
among others, that while certain requirements under
Section 21 of RA 9165 were not complied with, the
prosecution nevertheless established an unbroken chain of
custody of the seized drugs, which were preserved from the
time of seizure to receipt by the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping up to presentation in court. Besides, the
arresting officers provided justifiable reasons why the
marking could not be done at the place of arrest,  i.e., a
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

Muslim compound, since the same was — at that time —

already getting crowded, and because one of the suspects
allegedly belonged to a Muslim clan. Further, the absence
of a DOJ representative had already become a trivial
matter, considering that there was an elected local official
present during the inventory.18
Undaunted, accused-appellants elevated19 the matter to
the Court.

_______________

14  Id., at pp. 325-327.

15  See Notice of Appeal dated January 9, 2015; id., at p. 336.
16  Rollo, pp. 2-11.
17  Id., at p. 10.
18  Id., at pp. 8-10.
19  See Notice of Appeal dated April 26, 2016; id., at pp. 12-14.

 
 

358

358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delociembre

The Proceedings Before the Court

 
20
In a Resolution dated April 17, 2017, the Court upheld
the CA’s conviction of accused-appellants finding them
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5,
Article II of RA 9165.21
Dissatisfied, accused-appellants moved for
22
reconsideration,   arguing, among others, that the police
officers failed to comply with the mandatory procedures in
the handling and disposition of the seized drugs as
provided under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.23
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
The Court grants the motion for reconsideration.
At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in
criminal cases opens the entire case for review and it is the
duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and
appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they
are assigned or unassigned.24  “The appeal confers the
appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders
such court competent to examine the records, revise the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the

proper provision of the penal law.”25
In this case, accused-appellants were charged with the
crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and
penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Case law
states that in every prosecution for Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs,

_______________

20   See Notice of Resolution dated April 17, 2017 signed by Division

Clerk of Court Edgar O. Aricheta.
21  Rollo, p. 30.
22  Dated July 20, 2017. Id., at pp. 32-38.
23  Id., at pp. 34-37.
24  See People v. Dahil, 150 Phil. 212, 225; 745 SCRA 221, 233 (2015).
25  People v. Comboy, G.R. No. 218399, March 2, 2016, 785 SCRA 512,
521.

 
 

359

VOL. 865, JUNE 6, 2018 359

People vs. Delociembre

the following elements must be proven with moral

certainty: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment.26 Moreover, it is likewise
essential that the identity of the prohibited drugs be
established beyond reasonable doubt, considering that the
prohibited drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus
delicti of the crime. The prosecution has to show an
unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drugs so as
to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the
dangerous drugs on account of switching, “planting,” or
contamination of evidence. Accordingly, the prosecution
must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody
from the moment the illegal drugs are seized up to their
presentation in court as evidence of the crime.27
In this regard, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines
the procedure which the police officers must follow when
handling the seized drugs in order to preserve their
integrity and evidentiary value.28  Under the said section,
prior to its amendment by RA 10640,29  the apprehending
team shall, among others,  immediately after seizure
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and

photograph the seized items  in the presence of the
accused or the person from whom the items were
seized, or his 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 of the same, and the seized 

_______________

26  People v. Sumili, 153 Phil. 342, 348; 750 SCRA 143, 149 (2015).
27  See People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601; 730 SCRA 672, 680 (2014).
28  People v. Sumili, supra at pp. 349-350; pp. 150-151.
29  Entitled “An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of
the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act
No. 9165, otherwise known as the ‘Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002,’” approved on July 15, 2014.

 
 
360

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delociembre

drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory

within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for
examination.30  In the case of  People v. Mendoza,31  the
Court stressed that “[w]ithout the insulating presence
of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or
any elected public official during the seizure and
marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching,
‘planting’ or contamination of the evidence  that had
tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [RA]
6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly
heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the
seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that
were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus
adversely affected the trustworthiness of the
incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the x x x presence
of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain
of custody.”32
The Court, however, clarified that under varied field
conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not always be
possible.33 In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

(IRR) of RA 9165 — which is now crystallized into

statutory law with the passage of RA 1064034  — provides
that the said inventory and photog-

_______________

30  See Section 21(1) and (2), Article II of RA 9165.

31  736 Phil. 749; 727 SCRA 113 (2014).
32  Id., at p. 764; pp. 128-129; emphases and underscoring supplied.
33   See  People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234; 569 SCRA 194, 211
(2008).
34  Section 1 of RA 10640 provides:
Section  1.  Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known
as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“SEC.  21.  Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized,
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or

 
 

361

VOL. 865, JUNE 6, 2018 361

People vs. Delociembre

raphy may be conducted at the nearest police station or office of

the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and
that  noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165  —  under justifiable grounds  —  will
not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over
the seized items  so long as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer or

_______________

Laboratory Equipment.—The PDEA shall take charge and have

custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner:
(1)  The apprehending team having initial custody and control of
the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall,

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

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.
x x x x”

 
 
362

362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delociembre

team.35 In other words, the failure of the apprehending team to

strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article
II of RA 9165 and its IRR does not  ipso facto  render the seizure
and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the
prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable
ground for noncompliance;  and (b) the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved.36  In  People v.
Almorfe,37  the Court stressed that for the above saving
clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons
behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless
been preserved.38  Also, in  People v. De Guzman,39  it was
emphasized that  the justifiable ground for noncompliance
must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot
presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.40
In this case, the Court finds that the police officers
committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain
of custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity
and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from
accused-appellants.
An examination of the records reveals that while the
requisite inventory of the seized drugs was conducted in
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

the presence of accused­-appellants and an elected public

official, the same was not done in the presence of the
representatives from the media and the DOJ. More
significantly, the appre-

_______________

35   See also Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165. See

also People v. Ceralde, G.R. No. 228894, August 7, 2017, 834 SCRA 613.
36   See  People v. Goco, G.R. No. 219584, October 17, 2016, 806 SCRA
240, 252; citation omitted.
37  631 Phil. 51; 617 SCRA 52 (2010).
38  Id., at p. 60; p. 60.
39  630 Phil. 637; 616 SCRA 652 (2010).
40  Id., at p. 649; p. 662.  

 
 

363

VOL. 865, JUNE 6, 2018 363

People vs. Delociembre

hending officers failed to proffer a plausible explanation therefor.

During his cross-examination, IO1 Avenido admitted
that the DOJ office is near the place of arrest, as in fact, it
was only a five (5)-minute walk therefrom. However, when
asked if he bothered to pass by it to secure a DOJ
representative, he did not provide a categorical answer,
and instead, disavowed responsibility therefor, claiming
that there were other members of the buy-bust team who
were assigned to accomplish such task, to wit:
Q: The arrest allegedly happened at NIA Agham, correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: The DOJ agency building is right there, correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: About 5 minutes walk?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you bother to pass the DOJ Building to get a DOJ
representative?
A: We have other team members assigned to that, sir but I don’t
remember why they haven’t brought any DOJ representative at
that time, sir.
Q: Did you bother to get Public Attorney from the Public Attorney’s
Office which was also located at the DOJ Agency Building at
Agham NIA Road?

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

A: I don’t clearly remember, sir but we have the public elected official as
a witness.
x x x x
Q: I was referring to the counsel of the accused. Did you furnish them of
counsel of their own choice or a counsel from the government?
A: Yes, sir. During that time we appraise their rights. The other
members because we have a designation in our team I think they
are the one who contacted

 
 
364

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delociembre

    the witnesses for the accused. I think they only brought the
Kagawad, sir.

 
x x x x41 (Underscoring supplied)
 
Similarly, IO1 Reyes disclaimed liability but maintained
that it was their team leader, SOII Macairap, who was
specifically assigned to contact the representatives from
the media and DOJ, viz.:
Q:  Did you contact a DOJ representative to witness the inventory
taking?
A:  From what I recall,  it was our team leader who assigned the
persons who would call the DOJ representative and the
media representative, sir.
Q: Do you have any evidence that they were actually called?
A: The Kagawad  that they called came together with our team leader,
sir.
Q: How about the media man, do you have any evidence that he was
contacted?
A: I could not recall anything about it, it is the team leader who can
answer it, sir.
x x x x
Q: And considering that you actually know those rights, did you get a
counsel for the herein accused during their custody?
A: Actually, nobody came. It was the duty of our team leader to task a
personnel who would make the call  but when the  Barangay
Kagawad  came, our team leader decided to conduct the
inventory, sir.
Q: Even without counsel?

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

_______________

41  TSN, February 28, 2012, pp. 6-7.

 
 
365

VOL. 865, JUNE 6, 2018 365

People vs. Delociembre

A: Yes, sir, probably so that we would not exceed the allowable

time as provided in Section 21 as to the handling of the
evidence, sir.

 
x x x x42 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
 
Verily, apart from the unsubstantiated allegations of the
prosecution witnesses, there was no showing that the
apprehending officers attempted to contact and secure the
presence of representatives from the media and the DOJ.
Furthermore, no plausible reasons were given as to why
their presence could not be easily secured. Neither would
IO1 Reyes’s claim — that SOII Macairap decided to
immediately conduct the inventory despite the absence of
the other witnesses in order “not to exceed the allowable
time as provided in Section 21 as to the handling of the
evidence” — have any credence, considering that SOII
Macairap himself was never presented in court to
corroborate it. Besides, the fact that it would take someone
only five (5) minutes of walk to reach the DOJ building
from the place of arrest clearly repudiates such claim.
Without a doubt, procedural lapses committed by the
police officers, which were unfortunately unacknowledged
and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, as the
integrity and evidentiary value of the  corpus delicti  had
been compromised.43 The procedure in Section 21, Article II
of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be
brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse,
ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug
suspects.44 As such, since the prosecution in this case failed
to provide justifiable grounds for noncompliance with
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the acquittal of accused-
appellants is perforce in order.

_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

42  TSN, June 18, 2013, pp. 8-10.

43  See supra note 26 at p. 352; p. 154.
44  See People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, 820
SCRA 204, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1038; 671 SCRA 324,
338 (2012).

 
 
366

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delociembre

As a final note, the Court finds it fitting to echo its

recurring pronouncement in recent jurisprudence on the
subject matter:

The Court strongly supports the campaign of the

government against drug addiction and commends the
efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who
would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially
the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign
may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the
Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual
in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The
Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the
innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-
handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy
their intentions.
Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not
justified in disregarding the right of the individual in the
name of order. [For indeed,] [o]rder is too high a price for
the loss of liberty. x x x45

“In this light, prosecutors are strongly reminded that

they have the  positive duty  to prove compliance with the
procedure set forth in Section 21[, Article II] of RA 9165, as
amended. As such, they must have the initiative to not
only  acknowledge  but also  justify  any perceived
deviations from the said procedure during the
proceedings before the trial court. Since compliance
with this procedure is determinative of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the  corpus delicti  and ultimately, the
fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue
regarding the same was not raised, or even threshed out in
the court/s below, would not preclude the appellate court,
including this Court, from fully examining the records of
the case if only to ascertain whether
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

_______________

45   People v. Go, 457 Phil. 885, 925; 411 SCRA 81, 112 (2003),
citing People v. Aminnudin, 246 Phil. 424, 434-435; 163 SCRA 402, 410-
411 (1988).

 
 
367

VOL. 865, JUNE 6, 2018 367

People vs. Delociembre

the procedure had been completely complied with, and if

not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any
deviation. If no such reasons exist, then it is the appellate
court’s bounden duty to acquit the accused, and perforce,
overturn a conviction.”46
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration
is GRANTED. The Resolution dated April 17, 2017 of the
Court affirming the Decision dated March 31, 2016 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07231 is
hereby  REVERSED  and  SET ASIDE. A new one
is  ENTERED ACQUITTING  accused-appellants Bernie
Delociembre  y  Andales and Dhats Adam  y  Danga of the
crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is
ordered to cause their immediate release, unless they are
being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.
SO ORDERED.

Leonardo-De Castro (Chairperson), Del Castillo,

Jardeleza** and Caguioa, JJ., concur.

Motion for Reconsideration granted, resolution reversed

and set aside. Accused-appellants Bernie Delociembre y
Andales and Dhats Adam y Danga acquitted and ordered
immediately released.

Notes.—The justification that underlies the legitimacy

of the buy-bust operation is that the suspect is arrested in
flagrante delicto, that is, the suspect has just committed, or
is in the act of committing, or is attempting to commit the
offense in the presence of the arresting police officer or
private person. (People vs. Andaya, 738 SCRA 105 [2014])

_______________

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/20
3/1/22, 4:48 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 865

46   See  People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018, 854
SCRA 42.
** Designated additional member per Raffle dated June 6, 2018.

 
 
368

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delociembre

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. (People vs. Sorin, 754 SCRA 594
[2015])

 
——o0o——
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f4218839254624726000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/20