SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 258873. August 30, 2023.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. ABDUL AZIS y SAMPACO a.k.a.
"MOHAMMAD MACAPUNDAG GUIMBOR" @
"MAJOR" and ALIBAIR MACADATO y
MACADATO @ "ONGKAY", accused-appellants.

DECISION

LAZARO-JAVIER, J : p

The Case
This appeal 1 assails the Decision 2 dated August 24,
2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12604,
affirming the conviction of accused-appellants Abdul S. Azis
a.k.a. Mohammad Macapundag Guimbor alias "Major" and
Alibair M. Macadato alias "Ongkay" (accused-appellants) for
violation of Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. 3
In two separate Informations 4 dated June 16, 2016,
accused-appellants were charged with violation of Section 11
of Republic Act No. 9165, viz.:
Criminal Case No. C-97030
"That on or about the 15th day of June, 2016, in
Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without authority of law, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession,
custody and control Five (5) knot-tied transparent
plastic bag each containing METHAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu) with the following markings
and net weights: HTcADC

"AZIS/JA-1 6/15/16 with signature" — 98.40

grams
"AZIS/JA-2 6/15/16 with signature" — 98.51
grams
"AZIS/JA-3 6/15/16 with signature" — 97.98
grams
"AZIS/JA-4 6/15/16 with signature" — 98.19
grams
"AZIS/JA-5 6/15/16 with signature" — 98.61
grams
 with a total net weights (sic) of 491.69 grams,
which when subjected for laboratory examination gave
POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in gross violation of
the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. C-97031
"That on or about the 15th day of June, 2016, in
Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without authority of law, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession,
custody and control Six (6) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachets each containing METHAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu) with the following markings
and net weights:
"MACADATO/CDL/-1 6/15/16 with signature" =
24.18 grams
"MACADATO/CDL/-2 6/15/16 with signature" =
17.17 grams
"MACADATO/CDL/-3 6/15/16 with signature" =
4.22 grams
"MACADATO/CDL/-4 6/15/16 with signature" =
24.35 grams
"MACADATO/CDL/-5 6/15/16 with signature" =
11.99 grams
"MACADATO/CDL/-6 6/15/16 with signature" =
49.18 grams
with a total net weights (sic) of 131.09 grams
which when subjected for laboratory examination
[g]ave POSITIVE result to the tests for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in
gross violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
By Order dated July 8, 2016, the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 127, Caloocan City granted accused-appellants'
Motion for Consolidation. On arraignment, accused-appellants
pleaded not guilty to both charges. 5
During the trial, the prosecution presented the
testimonies of Police Officer 1 Jordan A. Alcova (PO1 Alcova),
PO1 Carlon Dave Lacson (PO1 Lacson), and Police Officer 2
Jerome Pascual (PO2 Pascual). As for the testimony of
Forensic Chemist Lourdeliza G. Cejes (Forensic Chemist
Cejes), the parties stipulated thereon. 6
The defense, on the other hand, presented the
testimonies of Azis, Imam Jamal M. Sharief (Imam Sharief),
and Macadato's sister, Monacaya M. Macadato (Monacaya). 7
CAIHTE
The Prosecution's Version
On June 15, 2016, around 5:00 p.m., PO1 Alcova, PO1
Lacson, Chief Police Senior Inspector Bernard Pagaduan,
Police Inspector Pauline Taule, and other operatives were
conducting "Oplan Galugad" within the area of Phase 12,
Barangay 188, Tala, Caloocan City. As they alighted from
their vehicle, from around 15 meters away, they noticed two
men walking, each carrying a sling bag. When PO1 Alcova
had drawn closer by only 1.5 meters away from the two men,
he heard one of them say to the other "eto pa yung tamok
galing kay Patak." Thereafter, one of the men, later identified
as Azis, brought out a plastic bag of suspected shabu and
handed it to his companion, later identified as Macadato. The
latter then immediately secured the plastic bag in his own
sling bag. 8
Upon seeing this, PO1 Alcova apprehended both Azis
and Macadato and called for his companions. PO1 Alcova
seized the sling bag of Azis and saw inside a bundle of
suspected shabu, and a firearm. PO1 Lacson seized
Macadato's sling bag which also contained plastic sachets of
suspected shabu. PO1 Alcova marked the sling bag recovered
from Azis and the five plastic sachets of suspected shabu
contained therein ("AZIS/JA 6/15/16-1"-"AZIS/JA 6/15/16-5"),
while PO1 Lacson marked the sling bag recovered from
Macadato and the six plastic sachets of suspected shabu
contained therein ("MACADATO/CDL-1
6/15/16"-"MACADATO/CDL-6 6/15/16"). 9
After marking the seized items, the people around the
barangay started mobbing the officers and had blocked their
way. The officers found it wise to immediately leave the area
together with accused-appellants and the seized items and
proceed to their office. There, accused-appellants and the
seized drugs were turned over to the investigator on duty,
PO2 Pascual. For the inventory and photographing, only
media representative Bernard Ariate was present. 10 For the
elective official, they called the barangay office in the area but
no one was responding since it was already past office hours.
The same thing happened when they called the Department of
Justice (DOJ). Hence, they proceeded with the inventory and
photography in the presence of accused-appellants and media
representative Ariate. 11
After signing the Evidence Acknowledgement Receipt,
Receipt of Physical Inventory, and Chain of Custody Form,
PO2 Pascual submitted the same together with the seized
items to the Northern Police District, Crime Laboratory
Valenzuela Satellite Office (NPD Crime Laboratory). Forensic
Chemist Cejes did a qualitative examination of the
transmitted specimens and the same tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride. She deposited the same
with the Evidence Custodian, who thereafter presented them
in court. 12
aScITE

The Defense's Version

Accused-appellants interposed frame-up. Azis testified
that on June 15, 2016, around 11:00 a.m., he was at home,
cooking food for his children when police officers entered his
house by destroying the gate with a cutter and a long
hammer. He was then told to lie down on the floor while they
brought out a black sling bag. In searching the house, they
destroyed several appliances and chairs and even took with
them a television set. He and his companions were brought to
the plaza first, and afterwards, to the police station. His
companions, however, were released. It was in the police
station that he first saw Macadato. 13
Because Macadato had no formal education and could
not understand Filipino, he was not presented as a defense
witness. In his stead, Imam Jamal Sharief, an appointed Imam
from the Imam Council of the Philippines, and Monacaya
testified on his behalf. 14
Imam Sharief testified that Macadato was a resident
under the jurisdiction of his Mosque and had known him for
two years. On June 15, 2016, around 8:00 a.m., he witnessed
Macadato's arrest from approximately a distance of 100
meters. There were numerous police officers who entered
Macadato's house and brought him outside. He admitted,
however, that he did not know why Macadato was arrested. 15
Monacaya, on the other hand, testified that on June 15,
2016, she was in her travel agency at Phase 15, Barangay
188, Caloocan City when she heard shouts which prompted
her to go out. She saw police officers conducting a raid in
front of her office and arresting a certain couple who was the
target of the raid. She then saw the police officers going
towards the direction of her brother's house. She followed
and saw Macadato being arrested and brought outside his
house. She sought help from the people around, but no one
helped. Like Imam Sharief, she did not know the reason
behind her brother's arrest. 16
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
By Joint Decision 17 dated February 22, 2019, the trial
court rendered a verdict of conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, based from the foregoing, this
Court renders judgment in this wise:
In Criminal Case No. C-97030 for Violation of
Section 11, Art. II, R.A. 9165, this Court finds the
Accused ABDUL AZIS y SAMPACO a.k.a. MOHAMMAD
MACAPUNDAG GUIMBOR @ Major guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the
 penalty of life imprisonment and fine of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos [P500,000.00].
In Criminal Case No. C-97031 for Violation of
Section 11, Art. II, R.A. 9165, this Court find Accused
ALIBAIR MACADATO y MACADATO @ Ongkay guilty
beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos [P500,000.00]. Dura lex
Sed lex.DETACa

The drugs subject matter of these cases are

ordered forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt
with in accordance with law. In this regard, the Branch
Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to turn over the
same to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for
immediate destruction in accordance with the provision
of R.A. 9165.
SO ORDERED. 18

The trial court found that the seized items were marked
at the very place of arrest. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary
value thereof were preserved. It did not give credence to
accused-appellants' defense of frame-up. Notably, the two
witnesses for Macadato did not know the reason why the
latter was arrested. No other credible witness stepped in to
corroborate their claims of denial and alibi. The averments of
the arresting officer were credible for being well-defined and
spontaneous. 19
The chain of custody remained intact and unbroken.
Although the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No.
9165 were not fully complied with, it found that there were
justifiable grounds therefor and that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
After marking the evidence at the place of arrest, the police
officers decided to conduct the inventory at the South Station
Anti-Illegal Drugs Office, as people were mobbing and
converging on them. Lastly, it found that since there was no
showing of ill motive on the part of the apprehending team
who testified on the matter, the categorical and positive
identification of the accused-appellants prevailed over their
alibi and denial. 20
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. 21 It denied
accused-appellants' argument that the seized items were
inadmissible for having been obtained after an illegal arrest.
It held that the warrantless arrests of both were lawful for
being in flagrante delicto arrests. Utterance of the word
"tamok," coupled with his act of handing Macadato a plastic
bag containing white crystalline substances were overt acts
sufficient to warrant suspicion in the mind of PO1 Alcova that
accused-appellants were in possession of dangerous drugs.
PO1 Alcova testified that he knew from experience that
"tamok" referred to shabu and had heard and seen these acts
of accused-appellants from a mere 1.5 meters away, which
prompted him to arrest them. Having been caught in
flagrante delicto, the subsequent search of accused-appellants
was incidental to a lawful warrantless arrest and the
dangerous drugs seized are therefore admissible in evidence.
22

It also held that the officers' failure to secure the

presence of an elected public official and/or a representative
from the National Prosecution Service was justified. The
investigator on duty, PO2 Pascual, tried to call for the
presence of the required witnesses but only the media
representative had arrived. The apprehending officers were in
a hurry to conduct the inventory and photographing because
they were still in the process of completing their operations
for Oplan Galugad. In any case, the presence of the lone
media representative is already sufficient to ensure the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs as the
amount of dangerous drugs involved is not minuscule, and
therefore, could not have been easily planted especially in
broad daylight with witnesses surrounding them. 23 HEITAD

The Present Petition

Accused-appellants now seek affirmative relief from the
Court and plead anew for their acquittal. For the purpose of
this appeal, both accused-appellants 24 and the People 25
manifested that, in lieu of supplemental briefs, they were
adopting their respective briefs before the Court of Appeals.
Our Ruling
We affirm.
The prosecution sufficiently
established all the elements of
illegal possession of dangerous
drugs
Appellants were charged with violation of Republic Act
No. 9165 26 allegedly committed on June 15, 2016. The
governing law, therefore, is Republic Act No. 9165 as
amended by Republic Act No. 10640 27 on August 7, 2014.
To sustain a verdict of conviction for illegal possession
of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the
following elements: (a) the accused was in possession of an
item or object identified as prohibited drug; (b) such
possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused
freely and consciously possessed said drug. 28
Here, the apprehending officers seized from accused-
appellants a total of 11 sachets of shabu weighing 622.78
grams after PO1 Alcova had arrested them in flagrante delicto
for being in possession of dangerous drugs. There is no
showing that accused-appellants were duly authorized to
possess these drugs. They, however, argue that their
warrantless arrest, and the search conducted incidental
thereto, were illegal.
We do not agree.
Valid warrantless arrest
and warrantless search
A warrantless arrest may be justified under any of the
following circumstances provided in Rule 113, Section 5 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, viz.: aDSIHc

Section 5. Arrest Without Warrant; When Lawful. — A

peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and
he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment
or place where he is serving final judgment
or is temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
Accused-appellants' arrest falls under Rule 113, Section
5 (a), i.e., they were caught in flagrante delicto of illegally
possessing dangerous drugs.
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals gave
credence to PO1 Alcova's testimony that while he and the
apprehending team were conducting Oplan Galugad within
Phase 12, Barangay 188, Tala, Caloocan City, he heard Azis
saying to Macadato "eto pa yung tamok galing kay Patak" and
thereafter saw Azis bring out a plastic bag of shabu from his
sling bag and hand it to Macadato, who then immediately slid
it inside his own sling bag. The fact that PO1 Alcova was only
1.5 meters away from accused-appellants at that time allowed
him to hear and see clearly their illegal acts.
In People v. Pavia, 29 police officers who were
responding to a tip that there was a "pot session" in progress
at a certain house in San Pedro, Laguna, saw accused-
appellants through a small opening of the house's window in
the act of using shabu. The Court held that there was
sufficient probable cause for the police officers to believe that
the accused-appellants therein were then and there
committing a crime. As it turned out, the accused-appellants
indeed possessed and were even using a dangerous drug,
contrary to law. For having been caught in flagrante delicto,
the police officers were duty bound to arrest accused-
appellants, even without a warrant. The search which yielded
dangerous drugs in their possession was held to be valid for
having been conducted after a lawful arrest.
Where the in flagrante delicto arrest of the accused was
lawful, there is no need for a warrant for the seizure of the
fruit of the crime as well as for the body search upon him, the
same being incidental to a lawful arrest and the search may
extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the
premises or surroundings under his immediate control. 30
Here, PO1 Alcova hearing the word "tamok," and almost
simultaneously, from a close distance of 1.5 meters, saw Azis
handing a plastic bag containing shabu to Macadato.
Together, these circumstances sufficiently constituted
probable cause for him to believe that they were then and
there committing a crime. True enough, accused-appellants
were indeed in the possession of a substantial quantity of
dangerous drugs, a total of 622.78 grams of shabu. Their
challenge against the admissibility of these seized items,
being allegedly fruits of a poisonous tree, utterly lacks merit.
For these dangerous drugs were seized during a lawful search
incidental to a valid warrantless arrest, and thus, admissible
in evidence against them. ATICcS

In any case, accused-appellants can no longer object to

the validity of their arrest and the incidental search thereto. It
is settled that any objection by the accused to an arrest
without a warrant must be made before they enter their plea,
otherwise the objection is deemed waived. 31 Here, not only
did accused-appellants fail to question their arrest and
incidental search before they entered their plea, 32 they also
did not question the same during trial 33 and was only
brought up as a defense for the first time before the Court of
Appeals. 34 Therefore, the legality of their arrest and the
incidental search must stand.
The apprehending officers
substantially complied with the
chain of custody rule
Apart from the elements of possession, the identity of
the substance illegally possessed, on one hand, and of the
substance offered in court as exhibit, on the other, must
likewise be established with the same degree of certitude. 35
Hence, the chain of custody rule comes to the fore to ensure
that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed. 36
 Mallillin v. People 37 expounded on the rationale for
the chain of custody rule:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain
of custody rule requires that the admission of an
exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is offered into
evidence, in such a way that every person who touched
the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in
the witness' possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to
the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same.
While testimony about a perfect chain is not
always the standard because it is almost always
impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody
becomes indispensable and essential when the item of
real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily
identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing
or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to
observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise
obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration,
tampering, contamination[,] and even substitution and
exchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of
susceptibility to fungibility, alteration[,] or tampering
— without regard to whether the same is advertent or
otherwise not — dictates the level of strictness in the
application of the chain of custody rule. 38ETHIDa

The chain of custody rule reckons with the four links

beginning from the moment the item was confiscated up to
the time it is offered in evidence, thus:
[F]irst, the seizure and marking, if practicable,
of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
[S]econd, the turnover of the illegal drug seized
by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
[T]hird, the turnover by the investigating officer
of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and
[F]ourth, the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to
the court. 39
Here, the Court finds that the prosecution substantially
complied with the chain of custody.
 The first link includes the marking, inventory, and
photographing of the seized dangerous drug. This is done
before the dangerous drug is sent to the crime laboratory for
testing. 40 The requirement is embodied in Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165, viz.:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of
Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. — 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 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;
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act
No. 9165 further commands: TIADCc

Section 21. (a) The apprehending officer/team

having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph
shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at
the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long
as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items.
 Marking means affixing the initials or signature or other
identifying signs by the apprehending officer to the dangerous
drugs or related items in the presence of the apprehended
violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the
prompt marking cannot be denied because succeeding
handlers of the dangerous drugs or, related items will use the
marking as reference. Also, the marking sets apart as
evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other
material from the moment they are confiscated until their
disposal at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby
forestalling switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.
41

Here, although the marking was done immediately after

the arrest and at the place of apprehension, accused-
appellants argue that the apprehending officers failed to
comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 since the
seized items were inventoried and photographed only at the
police station. On this score, we note that the volume of the
seized items and place of arrest necessitated the inventory
and photographing at the police station.
In People v. Taglucop, 42 there was a warrantless search
conducted pursuant to a buy-bust operation. The inventory
and taking of photographs were conducted at the nearest
police station instead of the place of seizure. The Court ruled
that it was practicable for the apprehending officers to do so
because of the gathering of a crowd, it was raining, and the
place was unsafe. These justifications were consistently
included in their judicial affidavits immediately executed after
the buy-bust operation.
In People v. Casa, 43 the Court made clear that in buy-
bust situations, or warrantless arrests, the physical inventory
and photographing may be done at the nearest police station
or at the office of the apprehending team, whichever is
practicable. But even in these alternative places, such
inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of
the accused and the insulating witnesses.
Here, it is undisputed that accused-appellants were
apprehended in the streets of Phase 12, Barangay 188, Tala,
Caloocan City. PO1 Alcova and PO1 Lacson both testified that
after they had marked the seized items, people started
mobbing and converging on them, even blocking their way, by
which time, they had to immediately leave the place and
proceed instead to their office. They were of the firm belief
that it would have been dangerous for them if they had stayed
and continued with the inventory and photographing there. cSEDTC

The place of arrest is an open area and the people who

started to gather and block their way could have caused a
disruption of the procedure, especially since a huge quantity
of illegal drugs was involved — a total volume of 622.78
grams of shabu. Further, the Court finds it reasonable and
natural for the apprehending officers to be seriously
concerned about their own safety considering the possibility
that there could be some other person or group of persons
who may just be observing them from a distance and would be
ready to pounce on them at any minute at the place of arrest.
Even then, the marking of the seized drugs was conducted
immediately after arrest and at the place of apprehension. In
view of these attendant circumstances, the possibility of
tampering the 622.78 grams of shabu would be farfetched, if
not nil.
As for the absence of a representative from the DOJ and
a local elective official during the inventory and
photographing, the same should not result in a verdict of
acquittal.
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by
Republic Act No. 10640, now only requires two witnesses to
be present during the physical inventory and photographing
of the seized items: (1) an elected public official; and (2)
either a representative from the National Prosecution Service
or the media. 44
Here, only a media representative, Bernard Ariate, was
present during the inventory and photographing of the seized
items at the police station. As a rule, compliance with the
chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same
has been regarded not merely as a procedural technicality but
as a matter of substantive law. This is because the law had
been crafted by Congress as a safety precaution to address
potential police abuses, especially considering that the
penalty imposed may be life imprisonment. The Court,
nonetheless, has recognized that due to varying field
conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody
procedure may not always be possible. As such, the failure of
the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same
would not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the
seized items invalid, provided that the prosecution
satisfactorily proves:
(a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and
(b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved. 45 AIDSTE

Here, PO2 Pascual, the investigator on duty, testified

how they seriously exerted efforts to secure the presence of a
local elective official and a representative from the National
Prosecution Service to no avail. They tried to call the DOJ and
barangay officials, but no one was available to witness the
procedure because obviously, the time when appellants were
brought to the police station was already after office hours —
10:30 p.m. But the inventory and photographing of the seized
items ought not to be delayed. The apprehending officers
were in a hurry because an illegal firearm was also recovered
from Azis, which had to be the subject of an investigation by
another office. They also had to conduct other operations
within the night for Oplan Galugad. Thus, they decided to
push through with the procedure and compensated the
absence of the other insulating witnesses with the presence of
a media representative. This is substantial compliance with
the chain of custody rule as the situation in this case calls for
immediate and decisive action.
In People v. Estabillo, 46 the seized items were marked,
inventoried, and photographed in front of an elected official
and two media representatives. There was simply no
prosecutor from the DOJ who was available to witness the
inventory at that very late hour — 12 o'clock midnight. The
Court, however, clarified that an extra media representative
was no substitute for a DOJ representative under Republic Act
No. 9165 prior to its amendment. The Court nonetheless
considered the arresting officers' decision to invite additional
witnesses than required as cogent proof of their good faith, if
not, earnest effort to comply with the witness requirement
under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, and more
important, to ensure transparency and dispel any kind of
suspicion on the legitimacy of the operation.
Even with the above deviations, the prosecution
witnesses sufficiently established who were in possession of
the seized items from confiscation at the place of arrest until
the turnover thereof at the NPD Crime Laboratory. During the
trial, PO1 Alcova identified in open court the pictures of the
transparent plastic bags of shabu subject of the illegal
possession charge. The integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items, therefore, remained intact.
The Court, in Ramos v. People, 47 upheld the conviction
of petitioner Roselyn Ramos for violation of Section 11,
Republic Act No. 9165 despite the fact that only Barangay
Captain Cajes witnessed the inventory of the seized item.
According to the Court, the chain of custody remained
unbroken as the police officers substantially complied with
the requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
The trial court correctly gave more credence and weight to
the testimony of SPO2 Monette Q. Whiteside as against
petitioner's unsubstantiated allegations.
Having sufficiently explained the deviations from the
chain of custody rule, said deviations cannot be said to have
diminished the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items.
The second link in the chain of custody is the turnover
of the seized shabu from the apprehending officers to the
investigating officer at the police station. 48 It was PO2
Pascual who conducted the inventory and photographing of
the items seized by PO1 Alcova and PO1 Lacson. Thereafter,
PO2 Pascual prepared the request for laboratory examination
of the seized items.
The third link in the chain of custody refers to the
delivery by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist. Here, after the inventory and photographing
of the seized items at the police station, PO2 Pascual
personally brought these together with the request for
laboratory examination to the NPD Crime Laboratory at
around 2:30 a.m. on June 16, 2016. The seized items and
letter request were personally received by Forensic Chemist
Cejes.SDAaTC

The fourth link in the chain of custody refers to the

turnover and submission of the marked illegal drugs from the
forensic chemist to the court. 49 The parties stipulated that
Forensic Chemist Cejes personally received the request from
PO2 Pascual and after conducting a qualitative examination
on the contents of the plastic bags, she found the same to be
positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
a dangerous drug, and executed Chemistry Report No. D-
0444-16. Upon completion of the examination, she sealed the
specimen and deposited the same with the evidence
custodian, who brought the same to the trial court. In fine,
there is no doubt that the drugs seized from accused-
appellants and tested by Forensic Chemist Cejes were the
same drugs delivered to the trial court.
The substantial volume of
seized items negates the
possibility of planting,
tampering, or alteration
An unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable
and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive,
not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of
testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to
observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in
case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering,
contamination, and even substitution and exchange. In other
words, the level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration, or
tampering — without regard to whether the same is advertent
or otherwise not — dictates the level of strictness in the
application of the chain of custody rule. 50
Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the
quantity of illegal drugs seized is minuscule, since it is highly
susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration of evidence.
51 Mallillin v. People 52 is in point:

Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or

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

People v. Holgado, 53 however, clarified that the

minuscule amount of the seized items involved is not per se a
ground for acquittal but only operates to remind the courts of
stricter adherence to the chain of custody, thus:
While the minuscule amount of narcotics seized is
by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance
underscores the need for more exacting compliance
with Section 21. In Mallillin v. People, this court said
that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with
respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is
small and is one that has physical characteristics
fungible in nature and similar inform to substances
familiar to people in their daily lives."
xxx xxx xxx
Trial courts should meticulously consider the
factual intricacies of cases involving violations of
Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into an
ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced narrative must
be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ
heightened scrutiny, consistent with the
requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in
evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of
drugs. These can be readily planted and
tampered. Also, doubt normally follows in cases where
an accused has been discharged from other
simultaneous offenses due to mishandling of evidence.
Had the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals
been so judicious in this case, a speedier resolution
would have been handed to Holgado and Misarez
whose guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not
established.
It is lamentable that while our dockets are
clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165
involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are
seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial
"big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small
 fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts.
While they are certainly a bane to our society, small
retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast
network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and
prosecutors should realize that the more effective and
efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the
source and true leadership of these nefarious
organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and
judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an
accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful
custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the
overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law
enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot
the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to
assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and
the leadership of these cartels. (Emphasis supplied)
Accused-appellants here were caught in the possession
of 622.78 grams of shabu. This substantial volume of seized
items far outweighed the possibility of planting, tampering, or
alteration.acEHCD

At any rate, despite the supposed deviations from the

procedure by the apprehending officers, the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items were duly preserved.
The description, weight, and quality of the drugs remained
substantially the same from their inventory to the request for
examination, their turnover to the laboratory for examination,
the results of the laboratory examination, up to their
presentation in court.
Accused-appellants' claim
of frame-up remains
unsubstantiated
Accused-appellants further claim that they were the
victims of frame-up by the apprehending officers. The burden
to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt is on the
prosecution. They do not have the burden of proving their
innocence. The apprehending team was ill-motivated to devise
the alleged warrantless arrests to show accomplishment in
participating in the drug war campaign of the administration
during their arrest.
We are not convinced.
An allegation of frame-up by police officers is a common
and standard defense in dangerous drugs cases viewed by
this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted. To
substantiate such defense, the evidence must be clear and
convincing 54 and should show that the apprehending team
was motivated by indecent objective or was not properly
performing their duty. 55
Aside from Azis's self-serving account and Imam Sharief
and Monacaya's testimonies of frame-up, no substantiating
evidence was adduced by the defense. In fact, the defense
witnesses for Macadato categorically testified that they did
not know the reason for the latter's arrest. Neither was it
shown that the apprehending officers were impelled by
improper motive in effecting the buy-bust operation. The
volume of the seized items alone stands against the
veracity of the alleged extortion. Where would the
apprehending officers get a total of 622.78 grams of
shabu and the huge equivalent amount just so they
could plant it on accused-appellants?
In any event, against the denial and allegations of frame-
up by accused-appellants, the positive and consistent
testimonies of PO1 Alcova, PO1 Lacson, and PO2 Pascual,
together with the corpus delicti, deserve greater weight and
merit.
All told, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the
conviction of accused-appellants for violation of Section 11 of
Republic Act No. 9165. EcTCAD

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED. The

Decision dated August 24, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR-HC No. 12604 is AFFIRMED.
In Criminal Case No. C-97030, ABDUL AZIS y
SAMPACO a.k.a. MOHAMMAD MACAPUNDAG GUIMBOR
alias Major is found GUILTY of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11 of Republic Act
No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640. He is
sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a FINE of
PHP500,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. C-97031, ALIBAIR MACADATO y
MACADATO alias Ongkay is found GUILTY of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11 of
Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No.
10640. He is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a
FINE of PHP500,000.00. SDHTEC

SO ORDERED.
Leonen, J.Y. Lopez and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.
M.V. Lopez, * J., is on official leave.

Footnotes
* Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez on official leave.
1. Rollo, p. 3.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo,
and concurred in by Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales
and Alfredo D. Ampuan of the Fifth Division, Court of
Appeals, Manila, id. at 8-26.
3. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Republic Act
No. 9165, June 7, 2002.
4. Id. at 9-10.
5. Id. at 10.
6. Id. at 10-12.
7. Id. at 13.
8. Id. at 12.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 37.
11. Id. at 23.
12. Id. at 10-11.
13. Id. at 13.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 13-14.
16. Id. at 14.
17. Penned by Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos, Branch 127,
Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, id. at 28-39.
18. Id. at 38-39.
19. Id. at 15-16.
20. Id. at 16.
21. Id. at 20.
22. Id. at 21-26.
23. Id.
24. Id. at 51-52.
25. Id. at 57-59.
26. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Republic
Act No. 9165, June 7, 2002.
27. 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; Republic
Act No. 10640, July 15, 2014.
28. People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457, 465 (2018), [Per J.
Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
29. 750 Phil. 871, 876 (2015) [Per J. Perez, First Division].
30. Id.
31. People v. Galon, G.R. No. 257969, July 27, 2022 [Notice,
First Division] citing People v. Vallejo, 461 Phil. 672
(2003) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc].
32. CA rollo, p. 72.
33. Id. at 73.
34. Rollo, p. 16.
35. People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393, 403 (2010) [Per J. Perez,
Second Division].
36. Catuiran v. People, 605 Phil. 646, 655 (2009) [Per J. Tinga,
Second Division].
37. 576 Phil. 576, 587-588 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second
Division].
38. Id.
39. People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010) [Per J. Brion,
Second Division].
40. People v. Bolivar, G.R. No. 225626, December 5, 2019
[Notice, First Division].
41. See People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 130-131 (2013) [Per
J. Bersamin, First Division].
42. G.R. No. 243577, March 15, 2022 [Per C.J. Gesmundo,
First Division].
43. G.R. No. 254208, August 16, 2022 [Per C.J. Gesmundo, En
Banc], citing People v. Pacnisen, 842 Phil. 1185 (2018)
[Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
44. People v. Lim, 839 Phil. 598, 617-618 (2018) [Per J.
Peralta, En Banc].
45. See People v. Bangalan, 839 Phil. 455, 462-463 (2018) [Per
J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
46. G.R. No. 252902, June 16, 2021 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier,
Second Division].
47. G.R. No. 244576, June 10, 2019 [Notice, First Division].
48. People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 31 (2017) [Per J. Del
Castillo, First Division].
49. People v. Quijano, 871 Phil. 547 (2020) [Per J. Lazaro-
Javier, First Division].
50. Mallillin v. People, supra note 36.
51. People v. Estabillo, G.R. No. 252902, June 16, 2021 [Per J.
Lazaro-Javier, Second Division].
52. Supra note 36 at 588.
53. 741 Phil. 78, 99 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
54. People v. Boco, 368 Phil. 340, 366-367 (1999) [Per J.
Panganiban, En Banc].
55. People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 198875, June 4, 2014
[Notice, Second Division].
||| (People v. Azis y Sampaco, G.R. No. 258873, [August 30, 2023])