9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

G.R. No. 191366. December 13, 2010.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARNOLD

MARTINEZ Y ANGELES, EDGAR DIZON Y FERRER, REZIN
MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO, and RAFAEL GONZALES Y
CUNANAN, accused-appellants.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Court has the power to

correct any error, even if unassigned, if such is necessary in arriving at a
just decision, especially when the transcendental matter of life and liberty is
at stake; Time and again, the Court has reiterated the doctrine that the rules
of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of justice,
rather than frustrate it.—Although the admissibility of the evidence was not
raised as in issue by the accused, it has been held that this Court has the
power to correct any error, even if unassigned, if such is necessary in
arriving at a just decision, especially when the transcendental matter of life
and liberty is at stake. While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to
promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, they nevertheless must not
be met at the expense of substantial justice. Time and again, this Court has
reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools intended to
facilitate the attainment of justice, rather than frustrate it. Technicalities
should never be used to defeat substantive rights. Thus, despite the
procedural lapses of the accused, this Court shall rule on the admissibility of
the evidence in the case at bench. The clear infringement of the accused’s
right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be
ignored.
Constitutional Law; Arrests; Searches and Seizures; A waiver of an
illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.—
The accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he fails to
raise such issue before arraignment. However, this waiver is limited only to
the arrest. The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court
over the person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest
does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized
during the illegal warrantless arrest.
Same; Same; Same; The State cannot, in a manner contrary to its
constitutional guarantee, intrude into the persons of its citizens as well as
into

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

792

792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

their houses, papers and effects; Instances were Arrests and Seizures are
Allowed even in the Absence of a Warrant.—The State cannot, in a manner
contrary to its constitutional guarantee, intrude into the persons of its
citizens as well as into their houses, papers and effects. x  x  x This
constitutional guarantee, however, is not a blanket prohibition against all
searches and seizures without warrant. Arrests and seizures in the following
instances are allowed even in the absence of a warrant—(i) warrantless
search incidental to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in “plain view”;
(iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented warrantless search; (v)
customs search; (vi) stop and frisk; and (vii) exigent and emergency
circumstances.
Same; Same; Same; Probable Cause; Probable cause has been held to
signify a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man’s belief that the
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.—
Paragraph (c) of Rule 113 is clearly inapplicable to this case. Paragraphs (a)
and (b), on the other hand, may be applicable and both require probable
cause to be present in order for a warrantless arrest to be valid. Probable
cause has been held to signify a reasonable ground of suspicion supported
by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious
man’s belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is
charged.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The grounds of suspicion are reasonable
when the suspicion, that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of
committing an offense, is based on actual facts, that is, supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause
of guilt of the person to be arrested.—It has been held that personal
knowledge of facts in arrests without warrant must be based upon probable
cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The
grounds of suspicion are reasonable when the suspicion, that the person to
be arrested is probably guilty of committing an offense, is based on actual
facts, that is, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.
Same; Same; Same; Elements of Plain View.—Neither can it be said
that the subject items were seized in plain view. The elements of plainview
are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the
evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to
be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and, (d)
“plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

793

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 793

People vs. Martinez

Same; Same; Same; Evidence procured on the occasion of an

unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the proverbial
fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded.—The apprehending
officers should have first conducted a surveillance considering that the
identity and address of one of the accused were already ascertained. After
conducting the surveillance and determining the existence of probable
cause, then a search warrant should have been secured prior to effecting
arrest and seizure. The arrest being illegal, the ensuing search as a result
thereof is likewise illegal. Evidence procured on the occasion of an
unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the proverbial
fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded. The subject items seized
during the illegal arrest are thus inadmissible. The drug, being the very
corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, its
inadmissibility thus precludes conviction, and calls for the acquittal of the
accused.
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Possession of Dangerous
Drugs; Essential Elements to Establish Illegal Possession of Dangerous
Drugs.—The essential requisites to establish illegal possession of dangerous
drugs are: (i) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug, (ii) such
possession is not authorized by law, and (iii) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the dangerous drug. Additionally, this being a case
for violation of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of the
crime is (iv) the possession of the dangerous drug must have occurred
during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate
company of at least two (2) persons.
Same; Same; Same; Chain of Custody Rule; Existence of the drug is
the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
and, thus, a condition sine qua non for conviction; In order to establish the
existence of the drug, its chain of custody must be sufficiently established.—
The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs and, thus, a condition sine qua non for
conviction. In order to establish the existence of the drug, its chain of
custody must be sufficiently established. The chain of custody requirement
is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are
removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and
finally to the court.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Proper procedure for the custody of seized
or confiscated items in dangerous drugs cases in order to ensure their
identity and integrity thoroughly discussed in People v. Habana, 614 SCRA
433

794

794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

(2010.—People v. Habana, 614 SCRA 433 (2010), thoroughly discusses the

proper procedure for the custody of seized or confiscated items in dangerous
drugs cases in order to ensure their identity and integrity, as follows:
“Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over
to a supervising officer, who would then send it by courier to the police
crime laboratory for testing. Since it is unavoidable that possession of the
substance changes hand a number of times, it is imperative for the officer
who seized the substance from the suspect to place his marking on its plastic
container and seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape that cannot be
removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. At the trial, the
officer can then identify the seized substance and the procedure he observed
to preserve its integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory. If the substance
is not in a plastic container, the officer should put it in one and seal the
same. In this way the substance would assuredly reach the laboratory in the
same condition it was seized from the accused. Further, after the laboratory
technician tests and verifies the nature of the substance in the container, he
should put his own mark on the plastic container and seal it again with a
new seal since the police officer’s seal has been broken. At the trial, the
technician can then describe the sealed condition of the plastic container
when it was handed to him and testify on the procedure he took afterwards
to preserve its integrity. If the sealing of the seized substance has not been
made, the prosecution would have to present every police officer,
messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain of
custody, no matter how briefly one’s possession has been. Each of them has
to testify that the substance, although unsealed, has not been tampered with
or substituted while in his care.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Instances where non-compliance with the
prescribed procedural requirements will not necessarily render the seizure
and custody of the items void and invalid.—Non-compliance with the
prescribed procedural requirements will not necessarily render the seizure
and custody of the items void and invalid, provided that (i) there is a
justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (ii) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In this case,
however, no justifiable ground is found availing, and it is apparent that there

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

was a failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items to ensure the identity of the corpus delicti from the time of
seizure to the time of presentation in court.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The suddenness of the situation cannot
justify non-compliance with the requirements; In case of warrantless
seizures

795

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 795

People vs. Martinez

nothing prevents the apprehending officer from immediately conducting the

physical inventory and photography of the items at their place of seizure.—
The Court does not find such to be a justifiable ground to excuse non-
compliance. The suddenness of the situation cannot justify non-compliance
with the requirements. The police officers were not prevented from
preparing an inventory and taking photographs. In fact, Section 21(a) of the
IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides specifically that in case of warrantless
seizures, the inventory and photographs shall be done at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. Whatever
effect the suddenness of the situation may have had should have dissipated
by the time they reached the police station, as the suspects had already been
arrested and the items seized. Moreover, it has been held that in case of
warrantless seizures nothing prevents the apprehending officer from
immediately conducting the physical inventory and photography of the
items at their place of seizure, as it is more in keeping with the law’s intent
to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Non-compliance with Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165 does not affect the admissibility of the evidence but
only its weight.—Let it be stressed that non-compliance with Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 does not affect the admissibility of the evidence but only its
weight. Thus, had the subject items in this case been admissible, their
evidentiary merit and probative value would be insufficient to warrant
conviction.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Presumption of Regularity; When
challenged by the evidence of a flawed chain of custody, the presumption of
regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence of the accused.
—It may be true that where no ill motive can be attributed to the police
officers, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
should prevail. However, such presumption obtains only when there is no
deviation from the regular performance of duty. Where the official act in
question is irregular on its face, the presumption of regularity cannot stand.
In this case, the official acts of the law enforcers were clearly shown and
proven to be irregular. When challenged by the evidence of a flawed chain

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

of custody, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the

presumption of innocence of the accused.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Court once again takes note of the
growing number of acquittals for dangerous drugs cases due to the failure
of law enforcers to observe the proper arrest, search and seizure procedure
under the law.—This Court once again takes note of the growing number of
acquittals for dangerous drugs cases due to the failure of law enforcers to
observe the proper arrest, search and seizure procedure under the law. Some
bona

796

796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

fide arrests and seizures in dangerous drugs cases result in the acquittal of
the accused because drug enforcement operatives compromise the integrity
and evidentiary worth of the seized items. It behooves this Court to remind
law enforcement agencies to exert greater effort to apply the rules and
procedures governing the custody, control, and handling of seized drugs.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The lapses in procedure must be
recognized, addressed and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds,
and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown
to have been preserved.—It is recognized that strict compliance with the
legal prescriptions of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible. Thus, as
earlier stated, non-compliance therewith is not necessarily fatal. However,
the lapses in procedure must be recognized, addressed and explained in
terms of their justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of
the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved.
 Same; Same; Same; Court notes the practice of law enforcers of filing
charges under Sec. 11 in cases where the presence of dangerous drugs as
basis for possession is only and solely in the form of residue; Although not
incorrect, it would be more in keeping with the intent of the law to file
charges under Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of
drug use, provided that there is a positive confirmatory test result as
required under Sec. 15.—On a final note, this Court takes the opportunity to
be instructive on Sec. 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and Sec. 15 (Use
of Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165, with regard to the charges that are
filed by law enforcers. This Court notes the practice of law enforcers of
filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases where the presence of dangerous drugs
as basis for possession is only and solely in the form of residue, being
subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not incorrect, it
would be more in keeping with the intent of the law to file charges under
Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use,
provided that there is a positive confirmatory test result as required under
Sec. 15. The minimum penalty under the last paragraph of Sec. 11 for the
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

possession of residue is imprisonment of twelve years and one day, while

the penalty under Sec. 15 for first time offenders of drug use is a minimum
of six months rehabilitation in a government center. To file charges under
Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone would frustrate the objective of the law
to rehabilitate drug users and provide them with an opportunity to recover
for a second chance at life.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

  The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

797

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 797

People vs. Martinez

  Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

  Public Attorney’s Office for accused Rafael Gonzales.
  Hermogenes S. Decano for accused Arnold Martinez, Rezin
Martinez and Edgar Dizon.

MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the August 7, 2009 Decision1 of the Court
of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. HC-NO. 03269, which affirmed the
February 13, 2008 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41,
Dagupan City (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 2006-0525-D, finding
the accused guilty of violating Section 13, in relation to Section 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for Possession of Dangerous
Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings.

The Facts

The Information indicting the accused reads:

“That on or about the 2nd day of September 2006, in the City of

Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, ARNOLD MARTINEZ y ANGELES, EDGAR
DIZON y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ y CAROLINO, ROLAND
DORIA y DIAZ and RAFAEL GONZALES y CUNANAN, without
authority of law, confederating together, acting jointly and helping one
another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally, sniff and
possess dangerous drugs (shabu residues) contained in empty plastic sachets
and rolled aluminum foil, during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting,
or in the proximate company of at least two (2) person[s].
Contrary to Section 13, Article II, R.A. 9165.”3

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr. with Associate
Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao,

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

concurring.
2 Records, pp. 140-145. Penned by Judge Emma M. Torio.
3 Id., at p. 1.

798

798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

Version of the Prosecution

As culled from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, Police
Officer 1 Bernard Azardon (PO1 Azardon), one of the apprehending
officers, and Police Inspector Lady Ellen Maranion (P/Insp.
Maranion), the forensic chemical officer, it appears that on
September 2, 2006, at around 12:45 o’clock in the afternoon, PO1
Azardon was on duty at the Police Community Precinct II along
Arellano Street, Dagupan City, when a concerned citizen entered the
precinct and reported that a pot session was going on in the house of
accused Rafael Gonzales (Gonzales) in Trinidad Subdivision,
Dagupan City. Upon receipt of the report, PO1 Azardon, PO1
Alejandro Dela Cruz (PO1 Dela Cruz), and members of the Special
Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team hied to Trinidad Subdivision,
Dagupan City. Upon inquiry from people in the area, the house of
Gonzales was located.
As the police officers entered the gate of the house, they saw
accused Orlando Doria (Doria) coming out of the side door and
immediately arrested him. Inside the house, they saw accused
Gonzales, Arnold Martinez (A. Martinez), Edgar Dizon (Dizon), and
Rezin Martinez (R. Martinez) in a room. The four were surprised by
the presence of the police. In front of them were open plastic sachets
(containing shabu residue), pieces of rolled used aluminum foil and
pieces of used aluminum foil.
The accused were arrested and brought to the police precinct.
The items found in the room were seized and turned over to the
Pangasinan Provincial Police Crime Laboratory Officer, P/Insp.
Maranion. The latter conducted a laboratory examination on the
seized items and all 115 plastic sachets, 11 pieces of rolled used
aluminum foil, and 27 of the 49 pieces of used aluminum foil tested
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused were
subjected to a drug test and, except for Doria, they were found to be
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Version of the Defense
The defense, through its witnesses, accused A. Martinez, Dizon,
and R. Martinez, claimed that in the morning of September 2, 2006,

799

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 799

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

People vs. Martinez

the three of them were along Arellano Street in Trinidad

Subdivision, Dagupan City, to meet with a certain Apper who
bumped the passenger jeep of R. Martinez and who was to give the
materials for the painting of said jeep. As they were going around
the subdivision looking for Apper, they saw Gonzales in front of his
house and asked him if he noticed a person pass by. While they were
talking, Doria arrived. It was then that five to seven policemen
emerged and apprehended them. They were handcuffed and brought
to the police station in Perez, Dagupan City, where they were
incarcerated and charged with sniffing shabu.
The Ruling of the RTC
The case against Doria was dismissed on a demurrer to evidence.
On February 13, 2008, the RTC rendered its decision, the
dispositve portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered

finding accused ARNOLD MARTINEZ y Angeles, EDGAR DIZON y
Ferrer, REZIN MARTINEZ y Carolino, and RAFAEL GONZALES y
Cunanan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Possession of
Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings defined and
penalized under Section 13 in relation to Section 11, Article II of Republic
Act 9165, and each of them is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay the fine in the amount of P500,000.00, and to pay
the cost of suit.
The subject items are hereby forfeited in favor of the government and to
be disposed of in accordance with the law.
SO ORDERED.”4

The RTC was of the view that the positive testimony of

prosecution witness PO1 Azardon, without any showing of ill-
motive on his part, prevailed over the defenses of denial and alibi
put up by the accused. The accused were held to have been in
constructive possession of the subject items. A conspiracy was also
found present as there was a common purpose to possess the
dangerous drug.

_______________

4 Id., at p. 145.

800

800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

The Ruling of the CA

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

The CA ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support the

findings of the RTC as to the constructive possession of the
dangerous drugs by the accused. It further held that although the
procedure regarding the custody and disposition of evidence
prescribed by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not strictly complied
with, the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were
nonetheless safeguarded. The CA was of the view that the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was not
sufficiently controverted by the accused.
Not in conformity, the accused now interposes this appeal before
this Court praying for the reversal of the subject decision, presenting
the following

Assignment of Errors

For accused Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon and Rezin Martinez

1. The lower court erred in finding the accused-appellants
to be having a pot session at the time of their arrest;
2. The lower court erred in not seeing through the antics of
the police to plant the shabu paraphernalia to justify the
arrest of the accused-appellants without warrant;
3. The lower court erred in not finding that the corpus
delicti has not been sufficiently established;
4. The lower court erred in not finding the uncorroborated
testimony of PO1 Azardon insufficient to convict the
accused-appellants of the crime charged;
5. The lower court erred in not acquitting the accused-
appellants.

801

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 801

People vs. Martinez

For accused Rafael Gonzales

I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S
FAILURE TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE
ALLEGED CONFISCATED DRUG.

After an assiduous assessment of the evidentiary records, the

Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

accused. The principal reasons are 1] that the evidence against the
accused are inadmissible; and 2] that granting the same to be
admissible, the chain of custody has not been duly established.
Illegal Arrest, Search and Seizure
Indeed, the accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his
arrest if he fails to raise such issue before arraignment.5 However,
this waiver is limited only to the arrest. The legality of an arrest
affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
accused. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with
it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the
illegal warrantless arrest.6
Although the admissibility of the evidence was not raised as in
issue by the accused, it has been held that this Court has the power
to correct any error, even if unassigned, if such is necessary in
arriving at a just decision,7 especially when the transcendental
matter of life

_______________

5 People v. Palma, G.R. No. 189279, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 784.
6 People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 633.
7 C.F. Sharp & Co., Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 431 Phil. 11, 22; 381 SCRA
314, 321 (2002).

802

802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

and liberty is at stake.8 While it is true that rules of procedure are

intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, they
nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice.
Time and again, this Court has reiterated the doctrine that the rules
of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of
justice, rather than frustrate it. Technicalities should never be used to
defeat substantive rights.9 Thus, despite the procedural lapses of the
accused, this Court shall rule on the admissibility of the evidence in
the case at bench. The clear infringement of the accused’s right to be
protected against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be
ignored.
The State cannot, in a manner contrary to its constitutional
guarantee, intrude into the persons of its citizens as well as into their
houses, papers and effects.10 Sec. 2, Art. III, of the 1987
Constitution provides:

“Section 2.—The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined

personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

This constitutional guarantee, however, is not a blanket

prohibition against all searches and seizures without warrant. Arrests
and seizures in the following instances are allowed even in the
absence of a warrant—(i) warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest;11 (ii) search of evidence in “plain view;” (iii) search of a
moving vehicle; (iv)

_______________

8 People v. Bodoso, 446 Phil. 838, 849-850; 398 SCRA 642, 648 (2003).
9 San Luis v. Rojas, G.R. No. 159127, March 3, 2008, 547 SCRA 345, 357-358.
10 People v. Siton, G.R. No. 169364, September 18, 2009, 600 SCRA 476, 493.
11 Rules of Court, Rule 126, Sec. 13.

803

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 803

People vs. Martinez

consented warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) stop and frisk;
and (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances.12
This case would appear to fall under either a warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest or a plain view search, both of which
require a lawful arrest in order to be considered valid exceptions to
the constitutional guarantee. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides for the circumstances under which a
warrantless arrest is lawful. Thus:

“Sec. 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.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be
proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.”

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

A review of the facts reveal that the arrest of the accused was
illegal and the subject items were confiscated as an incident thereof.
According to the testimony of PO1 Azardon and his Joint Affidavit13
with PO1 Dela Cruz, they proceeded to, and entered, the house of
accused Gonzales based solely on the report of a concerned citizen
that a pot session was going on in said house, to wit:

_______________

12 People v. Bolasa, 378 Phil. 1073, 1078-1079; 321 SCRA 459, 464-465 (1999).
13 Exhibit “E,” folder of exhibits, p. 11.

804

804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

Q: I go back to the information referred to you by the informant, did he not tell
you how many persons were actually conducting the pot session?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When you went to the place of Rafael Gonzales, of course you were not
armed with a search warrant, correct?
A: None, sir.
Q: Before the information was given to you by your alleged informant, you did
not know personally Rafael Gonzales?
A: I have not met [him] yet but I heard his name, sir.
Q: When this informant told you that he was told that there was [an] ongoing pot
session in the house of Rafael Gonzales, was this report to you placed in the
police blotter before you proceeded to the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: I think it was no longer recorded, sir.
Q: In other words, you did not even bother to get the personal data or identity of
the person who told you that he was allegedly informed that there was an
ongoing pot session in the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: What I know is that he is a jeepney driver of a downtown jeepney but he does
not want to be identified because he was afraid, sir.
Q: And likewise, he did not inform you who told him that there was an ongoing
pot session in the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: No more, sir.
Q: But upon receiving such report from that jeepney driver you immediately
formed a group and went to the place of Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x
Q: When you were at the open gate of the premises of Rafael Gonzales, you
could not see what is happening inside the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You did not also see the alleged paraphernalia as well as the plastic sachet of
shabu on the table while you were outside the premises of the property of
Rafael Gonzales?

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

805

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 805

People vs. Martinez

x x x
Q: Before they entered the premises they could not see the paraphernalia?
COURT: Answer.
A: Of course because they were inside the room, how could we see them, sir.
Q: But still you entered the premises, only because a certain person who told you
that he was informed by another person that there was an ongoing pot session
going on inside the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And that is the only reason why you barged in inside the house of Rafael
Gonzales and you arrested the persons you saw?
A: Yes, sir. 14

Paragraph (c) of Rule 113 is clearly inapplicable to this case.

Paragraphs (a) and (b), on the other hand, may be applicable and
both require probable cause to be present in order for a warrantless
arrest to be valid. Probable cause has been held to signify a
reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man’s belief
that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is
charged.15
Although this Court has ruled in several dangerous drugs cases16
that tipped information is sufficient probable cause to effect a
warrantless search,17 such rulings cannot be applied in the case at
bench because said cases involve either a buy-bust operation or
drugs in transit, basically, circumstances other than the sole tip of an
informer as basis for the arrest. None of these drug cases involve
police officers entering a house without warrant to effect arrest and
seizure based

_______________

14 TSN, February 23, 2007, pp. 10-16.

15 People v. Ayangao, 471 Phil. 379, 388; 427 SCRA 428, 433 (2004).
16 Id., People v. Valdez, 363 Phil. 481; 304 SCRA 140 (1999); People v. Montilla,
349 Phil. 640; 285 SCRA 703 (1998).
17 Id.

806

806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

solely on an informer’s tip. The case of People v. Bolasa18 is

informative on this matter.
In People v. Bolasa, an anonymous caller tipped off the police
that a man and a woman were repacking prohibited drugs at a certain
house. The police immediately proceeded to the house of the
suspects. They walked towards the house accompanied by their
informer. When they reached the house, they peeped inside through
a small window and saw a man and woman repacking marijuana.
They then entered the house, introduced themselves as police
officers, confiscated the drug paraphernalia, and arrested the
suspects. This Court ruled:

“The manner by which accused-appellants were apprehended does not

fall under any of the above-enumerated categories. Perforce, their arrest is
illegal. First, the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at the
time of their arrest, accused-appellants had just committed, were
committing, or were about to commit a crime. Second, the arresting officers
had no personal knowledge that a crime was committed nor did they have
any reasonable ground to believe that accused-appellants committed it.
Third, accused-appellants were not prisoners who have escaped from a
penal establishment.
Neither can it be said that the objects were seized in plain view. First,
there was no valid intrusion. As already discussed, accused-appellants were
illegally arrested. Second, the evidence, i.e., the tea bags later on found to
contain marijuana, was not inadvertently discovered. The police officers
intentionally peeped first through the window before they saw and
ascertained the activities of accused-appellants inside the room. In like
manner, the search cannot be categorized as a search of a moving vehicle, a
consented warrantless search, a customs search, or a stop and frisk; it cannot
even fall under exigent and emergency circumstances, for the evidence at
hand is bereft of any such showing.
On the contrary, it indicates that the apprehending officers should have
conducted first a surveillance considering that the identities and address of
the suspected culprits were already ascertained. After conducting the
surveillance and determining the existence of probable cause for arresting
accused-appellants, they should have secured a search warrant prior to
effecting a valid arrest and seizure. The arrest being illegal ab initio, the
accompanying search was likewise illegal. Every evidence thus obtained
during the illegal

_______________

18 Supra note 13.

807

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 807

People vs. Martinez

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

search cannot be used against accused-appellants; hence, their acquittal

must follow in faithful obeisance to the fundamental law.”19

It has been held that personal knowledge of facts in arrests

without warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means
an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of
suspicion are reasonable when the suspicion, that the person to be
arrested is probably guilty of committing an offense, is based on
actual facts, that is, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be
arrested. 20
As to paragraph (a) of Section 5 of Rule 113, the arresting
officers had no personal knowledge that at the time of the arrest,
accused had just committed, were committing, or were about to
commit a crime, as they had no probable cause to enter the house of
accused Rafael Gonzales in order to arrest them. As to paragraph
(b), the arresting officers had no personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that would lead them to believe that the accused had
just committed an offense. As admitted in the testimony of PO1
Azardon, the tip originated from a concerned citizen who himself
had no personal knowledge of the information that was reported to
the police:
Q: Mr. Witness, you claimed that the reason for apprehending all the accused was
based on a tip-off by an informant?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What exactly [did] that informant tell you?
A: He told us that somebody told him that there was an ongoing pot session in
the house of one of the accused Rafael Gonzales, sir.
Q: You mean to say that it was not the informant himself to whom the
information originated but from somebody else?
A: That was what he told me, sir.
Q: Because of that you proceeded to where the alleged pot session was going on?
[No Answer]

_______________

19 Supra note 13.

20 People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 632; 301 SCRA 668, 709 (1999).

808

808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

Q: Did you[r] informant particularly pinpointed [sic] to where the alleged pot
session was going on?
A: No more because he did not go with us, sir.
Q: So you merely relied on what he said that something or a pot session was
going on somewhere in Arellano but you don’t know the exact place where

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

the pot session was going on?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: And your informant has no personal knowledge as to the veracity of the
alleged pot session because he claimed that he derived that information from
somebody else?
A: This is what he told us that somebody told him that there was an ongoing pot
session, sir.
Q: Despite of [sic] that information you proceeded to where?
A: Trinidad Subdivision, sir.
x x x
Q: Mr. Witness, did your informant named [sic] those included in the alleged pot
session?
A: No, sir.
Q: That was, because your informant don’t [sic] know physically what was really
happening there?
A: He was told by another person that there was an ongoing pot session there,
sir.21 [Emphasis supplied]

Neither can it be said that the subject items were seized in plain
view. The elements of plainview are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based
on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present
in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was
inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be
where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and,
(d) “plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without further
search.22
The evidence was not inadvertently discovered as the police
officers intentionally entered the house with no prior surveillance or
investigation before they discovered the accused with the subject
items. If

_______________

21 TSN, February 23, 2007, pp. 3-5.

22 Supra note 13.

809

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 809

People vs. Martinez

the prior peeking of the police officers in Bolasa was held to be

insufficient to constitute plain view, then more so should the
warrantless search in this case be struck down. Neither can the
search be considered as a search of a moving vehicle, a consented
warrantless search, a customs search, a stop and frisk, or one under
exigent and emergency circumstances.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

The apprehending officers should have first conducted a

surveillance considering that the identity and address of one of the
accused were already ascertained. After conducting the surveillance
and determining the existence of probable cause, then a search
warrant should have been secured prior to effecting arrest and
seizure. The arrest being illegal, the ensuing search as a result
thereof is likewise illegal. Evidence procured on the occasion of an
unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded.23 The
subject items seized during the illegal arrest are thus inadmissible.
The drug, being the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, its inadmissibility thus precludes
conviction, and calls for the acquittal of the accused.
As has been noted previously by this Court, some lawmen,
prosecutors and judges have glossed over illegal searches and
seizures in cases where law enforcers are able to present the alleged
evidence of the crime, regardless of the methods by which they were
obtained. This attitude tramples on constitutionally-guaranteed
rights in the name of law enforcement. It is ironic that such
enforcement of the law fosters the breakdown of our system of
justice and the eventual denigration of society. While this Court
appreciates and encourages the efforts of law enforcers to uphold the
law and to preserve the peace and security of society, we
nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate care and within
the parameters set by the Constitution and the law.24

_______________

23 People v. Valdez, 395 Phil. 206, 218; 341 SCRA 25, 37 (2000).
24  People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 633; citing
People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007, 516 SCRA 463, 484-485.

810

810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

Chain of Custody
Even granting that the seized items are admissible as evidence,
the acquittal of the accused would still be in order for failure of the
apprehending officers to comply with the chain of custody
requirement in dangerous drugs cases.
The accused contend that the identity of the seized drug was not
established with moral certainty as the chain of custody appears to
be questionable, the authorities having failed to comply with
Sections 21 and 86 of R.A. No. 9165, and Dangerous Drug Board
(DDB) Resolution No. 03, Series of 1979, as amended by Board
Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990. They argue that there was no prior
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency

(PDEA), no inventory of the confiscated items conducted at the
crime scene, no photograph of the items taken, no compliance with
the rule requiring the accused to sign the inventory and to give them
copies thereof, and no showing of how the items were handled from
the time of confiscation up to the time of submission to the crime
laboratory for testing. Therefore, the corpus delicti was not proven,
thereby producing reasonable doubt as to their guilt. Thus, they
assert that the presumption of innocence in their favor was not
overcome by the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty.
The essential requisites to establish illegal possession of
dangerous drugs are: (i) the accused was in possession of the
dangerous drug, (ii) such possession is not authorized by law, and
(iii) the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous
drug.25 Additionally, this being a case for violation of Section 13 of
R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of the crime is (iv) the
possession of the dangerous drug must have occurred during a party,
or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of
at least two (2) persons.
The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime
of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and, thus, a condition sine
qua non for conviction. In order to establish the existence of the
drug, its

_______________

25 People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 377, 390-
391.

811

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 811

People vs. Martinez

chain of custody must be sufficiently established. The chain of

custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the
identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and
tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to
the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.26 Malillin
v. People was the first in a growing number of cases to explain the
importance of chain of custody in dangerous drugs cases, to wit:

“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

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

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.”27

Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,28 defines

chain of custody as follows:

“b. “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 used in court as evidence, and the final disposition;”

_______________

26 People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259, 274.
27 G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-633.
28  Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment.

812

812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, provides for

safeguards for the protection of the identity and integrity of
dangerous drugs seized, to wit:

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 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
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

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.

People v. Habana thoroughly discusses the proper procedure for

the custody of seized or confiscated items in dangerous drugs cases
in order to ensure their identity and integrity, as follows:

“Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it
over to a supervising officer, who would then send it by courier to the police
crime laboratory for testing. Since it is unavoidable that possession of the
substance changes hand a number of times, it is imperative for the officer
who seized the substance from the suspect to place his marking on its plastic
container and seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape that cannot be
removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. At the trial, the
officer can then identify the seized substance and the procedure he observed
to preserve its integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory.
If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should put it in
one and seal the same. In this way the substance would assuredly reach the
laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the accused. Further,
after the laboratory technician tests and verifies the nature of the substance
in the container, he should put his own mark on the plastic container and
seal it again with a new seal since the police officer’s seal has been broken.
At the trial, the technician can then describe the sealed condition of the
plastic

813

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 813

People vs. Martinez

container when it was handed to him and testify on the procedure he took
afterwards to preserve its integrity.
If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the prosecution
would have to present every police officer, messenger, laboratory technician,
and storage personnel, the entire chain of custody, no matter how briefly
one’s possession has been. Each of them has to testify that the substance,
although unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted while in his
care.”29

Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)

of R.A. No. 9165 further elaborates, and provides for, the possibility
of non-compliance with the prescribed procedure:

(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
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

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

Accordingly, non-compliance with the prescribed procedural

requirements will not necessarily render the seizure and custody of
the items void and invalid, provided that (i) there is a justifiable
ground for such non-compliance, and (ii) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In this
case, however, no justifiable ground is found availing, and it is
apparent that there was a failure to properly preserve the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items to ensure the identity of the
corpus delicti from the

_______________

29 G.R. No. 188900, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 433.

814

814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

time of seizure to the time of presentation in court. A review of the

testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary
records of the case reveals irreparably broken links in the chain of
custody.
  According to the apprehending police officers in their Joint
Affidavit, the following were confiscated from the accused, to wit:

a) Several pcs of used empty plastic sachets containing suspected shabu

residues.
b) Eight used (8) disposable lighters ( two (2) pcs colored orange, two (2) pcs
colored yellow, one (1) pc colored green & one (1) pc colored white ).
c) Several pcs of used rolled aluminum foil containing suspected shabu
residues.
d) Several pcs of used cut aluminum foil containing suspected shabu residues.
e) One (1) pc glass tube containing suspected shabu residues.30
[Emphases supplied]

At the police station, the case, the accused, and the above-
mentioned items were indorsed to Duty Investigator Senior Police
Officer 1 Pedro Urbano, Jr. (SPO1 Urbano) for proper disposition.31
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

A letter-request for laboratory examination was prepared by Police

Superintendent Edgar Orduna Basbag for the following items:

a) Pieces of used empty small plastic sachets with suspected shabu residues
marked “DC&A-1.”
b) Pieces of used rolled and cut aluminum foil with suspected shabu residues
marked “DC&A-2.”
c) Pieces of used cut aluminum foil with suspected shabu residues marked
“DC&A-3.”32
[Emphases supplied]

_______________

30 Exhibit “E,” folder of exhibits, p. 11.

31 Exhibit “G,” folder of exhibits, p. 13.
32 Exhibit “A,” folder of exhibits, p. 6.

815

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 815

People vs. Martinez

The letter-request and above-mentioned items were submitted to

P/Insp. Maranion by SPO3 Froilan Esteban (SPO3 Esteban). Final
Chemistry Report No. D-042-06L listed the specimens which were
submitted for testing, to wit:

SPECIMENS SUBMITTED:
A–A1 to A115—One Hundred fifteen (115) open transparent plastic sachet
with tag each containing suspected shabu residue without markings.
B–B1 to B11—Eleven (11) rolled used aluminum foil with tag each
containing suspected shabu residue without markings.
C–C1 to C49—Forty-nine (49) used aluminum foil with tag each
containing suspected shabu residue without markings.33
                                          [Emphases supplied]

Three days after the subject items were seized, or on September

5, 2006, a Confiscation Receipt was issued by PO1 Azardon and
PO1 Dela Cruz, which reads:

DCPS AID SOTG                         05 September 2006

CONFISCATION RECEIPT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on or about 12:45 noon of September 4,
2006, we together with our precinct supervisor, SPO4 Pedro Belen Jr., and
SWAT members composed of SPO1 Marlon Decano, PO3 Manuel Garcia,
PO2 Adriano Cepiroto and PO1 Aldrin Guarin apprehended the following
names of persons of ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES, 37 yrs old,
married, jobless, a resident of Lucao Dist., this city; EDGAR DIZON Y

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

FERRER, 36 yrs old, single, tricycle driver, a resident of 471 Lucao Dist.,
this city. REZIN MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO, 44 yrs old, married, jitney
driver, a resident of Lucao Disttrict this city; ROLAND DORIA Y DIAZ,
39 yrs old, married, businessman, resident of Cabeldatan, Malasiqui,
Pangasinan and RAFAEL GONZALES Y CUNANAN, 49 yrs old,
separated, jobless and a resident of Trinidad Subd., Arellano-Bani this city.

_______________

33 Exhibit “D,” folder of exhibits, p. 10.

816

816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

Suspects were duly informed of their constitutional rights and were

brought to Dagupan City Police Station, Perez Market Site Dagupan City
and indorsed to Duty Desk Officer to record the incident and the sachet of
suspected Shabu Paraphernalias were brought to PNP Crime Laboratory,
Lingayen, Pangasinan for Laboratory Examination.
Seizing Officer:
(sgd.)                                                  (sgd.)
PO1 Bernard B Azardon                      PO1 Alejandro Dela Cruz
Affiant                                                Affiant
Remarks:
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed34
                                                             [Emphases supplied]

The 115 open transparent plastic sachets, 11 pieces of rolled used

aluminum foil, and 27 (of the 49) pieces of used aluminum foil, all
containing shabu residue, as identified in the Final Chemistry
Report, were presented in court and marked as Exhibits “H” and
series, “I” and series, and “J” and series, respectively. Said items
were identified by PO1 Azardon and P/Insp. Maranion at the witness
stand.35
The CA ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
subject items were properly preserved as there was sufficient
evidence to prove that the items seized from the accused were the
same ones forwarded to the crime laboratory for examination, as
shown in the Confiscation Receipt and the letter-request for
laboratory examination.
A review of the chain of custody indicates, however, that the CA
is mistaken.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

First, the apprehending team failed to comply with Section 21 of

R.A. No. 9165. After seizure and confiscation of the subject items,
no

_______________

34 Exhibit “F,” folder of exhibits, p. 12.

35 TSN, February 9, 2007, p. 6; and TSN, January 22, 2007, pp. 10-12.

817

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 817

People vs. Martinez

physical inventory was conducted in the presence of the accused, or

their representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the DOJ, and any elected public official. Thus, no inventory was
prepared, signed, and provided to the accused in the manner required
by law. PO1 Azardon, in his testimony,36 admitted that no
photographs were taken. The only discernable reason proffered by
him for the failure to comply with the prescribed procedure was that
the situation happened so suddenly. Thus:
Q: But upon receiving such report from that jeepney driver you immediately
formed a group and went to the place of Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Such that you did not even inform the PDEA before you barged in that place
of Rafael Gonzales?
A: It was so suddenly, [sic] sir.
Q: And that explains the reason why you were not able to have pictures taken, is
that correct?
A: Yes, sir. 37
                                 [Emphasis supplied]

The Court does not find such to be a justifiable ground to excuse

non-compliance. The suddenness of the situation cannot justify non-
compliance with the requirements. The police officers were not
prevented from preparing an inventory and taking photographs. In
fact, Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides specifically
that in case of warrantless seizures, the inventory and photographs
shall be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team. Whatever effect the suddenness of
the situation may have had should have dissipated by the time they
reached the police station, as the suspects had already been arrested
and the items seized. Moreover, it has been held that in case of
warrantless seizures nothing prevents the apprehending officer from
immediately conducting the physical inventory and photography of
the items at

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

_______________

36 TSN, February 23, 2007, p. 7.

37 TSN, February 23, 2007, p. 12.

818

818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

their place of seizure, as it is more in keeping with the law’s intent to

preserve their integrity and evidentiary value.38
This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug cases for
failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, resulting in the
failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items. Some cases are People v. Garcia,39 People v. Dela
Cruz,40 People v. Dela Cruz,41 People v. Santos, Jr.,42 People v.
Nazareno,43 People v. Orteza,44 Zarraga v. People,45 and People v.
Kimura.46
Second, the subject items were not properly marked. The case of
People v. Sanchez is instructive on the requirement of marking, to
wit:

“What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not
expressly specify is the matter of “marking” of the seized items in
warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension is
the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these
activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of
arrest. Consistency with the “chain of custody” rule requires that the
“marking” of the seized items—to truly ensure that they are the same items
that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence—should
be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately
upon confiscation. This step initiates the process of protecting innocent
persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the
apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence
under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or theft.
For greater specificity, “marking” means the placing by the apprehending
officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the item/s
seized. x x x Thereafter, the seized items shall be placed in an envelope or
an

_______________

38 People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 218.
39 Supra note 27.
40 G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 273.
41 G.R. No. 181545, October 8, 2008, 568 SCRA 273.
42 G.R. No. 175593, October 17, 2007, 536 SCRA 489.
43 G.R. No. 174771, September 11, 2007, 532 SCRA 630.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

44 G.R. No. 173051, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750.

45 G.R. No. 162064, March 14, 2006, 484 SCRA 639.
46 471 Phil. 895; 428 SCRA 51 (2004).

819

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 819

People vs. Martinez

evidence bag unless the type and quantity of the seized 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.”47 [Emphasis in the original]

Nowhere in the testimony of PO1 Azardon or in his Joint

Affidavit with PO1 Dela Cruz does it appear that the subject items
were at all marked. It was only in the letter-request for laboratory
examination that the subject items were indicated to have been
marked with “DC&A-1,” “DC&A-2” and “DC&A-3.” There is no
showing, however, as to who made those markings and when they
were made. Moreover, those purported markings were never
mentioned when the subject items were identified by the prosecution
witnesses when they took the stand.
The markings appear to pertain to a group of items, that is, empty
plastic sachets, rolled and cut aluminium foil, and cut aluminium
foil, but do not specifically pertain to any individual item in each
group. Furthermore, it was only in the Chemistry Report48 that the
precise number of each type of item was indicated and enumerated.
The Court notes that in all documents prior to said report, the subject
items were never accurately quantified but only described as
“pieces,”49 “several pcs,”50 and “shabu paraphernallas.”51 Strangely,
the Chemistry Report indicates that all the subject items had “no
markings,” although each item was reported to have been marked by
P/Insp. Maranion in the course of processing the subject items
during laboratory examination and testing.52 Doubt, therefore, arises
as to the identity of the subject items. It cannot be determined with
moral certainty that the subject items seized from the accused were
the

_______________

47 Supra note 38.

48 Exhibit “C,” folder of exhibits, p. 9; Exhibit “D,” folder of exhibits, p. 10.
49 Exhibit “A,” folder of exhibits, p. 6.
50 Exhibit “E,” folder of exhibits, p. 11; Exhibit “G,” folder of exhibits, p. 13.
51 Exhibit “B,” folder of exhibits, p. 7; Exhibit “F,” folder of exhibits, p. 12.
52 TSN, January 22, 2007, pp. 10-12.

820

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

same ones subjected to the laboratory examination and presented in

court.
This Court has acquitted the accused for the failure and
irregularity in the marking of seized items in dangerous drugs cases,
such as Zarraga v. People,53 People v. Kimura,54 and People v.
Laxa.55
Third, the Confiscation Receipt relied upon by the prosecution
and the courts below gives rise to more uncertainty. Instead of being
prepared on the day of the seizure of the items, it was prepared only
three days after. More important, the receipt did not even indicate
exactly what items were confiscated and their quantity. These are
basic information that a confiscation receipt should provide. The
only information contained in the Confiscation Receipt was the fact
of arrest of the accused and the general description of the subject
items as “the sachet of suspected Shabu paraphernallas were brought
to the PNP Crime Laboratory.” The receipt is made even more
dubious by PO1 Azardon’s admission in his testimony56 that he did
not personally prepare the Confiscation Receipt and he did not know
exactly who did so.
Fourth, according to the Certification57 issued by the Dagupan
Police Station, the subject items were indorsed by PO1 Dela Cruz to
Duty Investigator SPO1 Urbano for proper disposition. These were
later turned over by SPO3 Esteban to P/Insp. Maranion. There is,
however, no showing of how and when the subject items were
transferred from SPO1 Urbano to SPO3 Esteban.
Fifth, P/Insp. Maranion appears to be the last person in the chain
of custody. No witness testified on how the subject items were kept
after they were tested prior to their presentation in court. This Court

_______________

53 Supra note 46.

54 Supra note 47.
55 414 Phil. 156; 361 SCRA 622 (2001).
56 TSN, February 9, 2007, p. 7; TSN, February 23, 2007, pp. 6-7.
57 Exhibit “G,” folder of exhibits, p. 13.

821

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 821

People vs. Martinez

has highlighted similar shortcomings in People v. Cervantes,58

People v. Garcia,59 People v. Sanchez,60 and Malillin v. People.61

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

More irregularities further darken the cloud as to the guilt of the

accused. Contrary to PO1 Azardon’s testimony62 that they were
tipped off by a concerned citizen while at the police station, the
Letter63 to the Executive Director of the DDB states that the
apprehending officers were tipped off “while conducting
monitoring/surveillance.” Said letter also indicates, as does the
Confiscation Receipt, that the arrest and seizure occurred on
September 4, 2006, and not September 2, 2006, as alleged in the
Information. It was also mentioned in the aforementioned
Certification of the Dagupan Police and Joint Affidavit of the police
officers that a glass tube suspected to contain shabu residue was also
confiscated from the accused. Interestingly, no glass tube was
submitted for laboratory examination.
In sum, numerous lapses and irregularities in the chain of custody
belie the prosecution’s position that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the subject items were properly preserved. The two
documents specifically relied on by the CA, the Confiscation Receipt
and the letter-request for laboratory examination, have been shown
to be grossly insufficient in proving the identity of the corpus delicti.
The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the drug
itself. This means that proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity
of the prohibited drug is essential before the accused can be found
guilty.64
Regarding the lack of prior coordination with the PDEA provided
in Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165, in People v. Sta. Maria,65 this Court
held that said section was silent as to the consequences of such
failure, and said silence could not be interpreted as a legislative
intent to

_______________

58 G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 762.

59 Supra note 27.
60 Supra note 39.
61 Supra note 28.
62 TSN, February 9, 2007, p. 4.
63 Exhibit “B,” folder of exhibits, p. 7.
64 People v. Cacao, G.R. No. 180870, January 22, 2010, 610 SCRA 636, 651.
65 G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621, 631-632.

822

822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal, nor

evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Section
86 is explicit only in saying that the PDEA shall be the “lead
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

agency” in the investigation and prosecution of drug-related cases.

Therefore, other law enforcement bodies still possess authority to
perform similar functions as the PDEA as long as illegal drugs cases
will eventually be transferred to the latter.
Let it be stressed that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165 does not affect the admissibility of the evidence but only
its weight.66 Thus, had the subject items in this case been
admissible, their evidentiary merit and probative value would be
insufficient to warrant conviction.
It may be true that where no ill motive can be attributed to the
police officers, the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty should prevail. However, such presumption obtains
only when there is no deviation from the regular performance of
duty.67 Where the official act in question is irregular on its face, the
presumption of regularity cannot stand.
In this case, the official acts of the law enforcers were clearly
shown and proven to be irregular. When challenged by the evidence
of a flawed chain of custody, the presumption of regularity cannot
prevail over the presumption of innocence of the accused.68
This Court once again takes note of the growing number of
acquittals for dangerous drugs cases due to the failure of law
enforcers to observe the proper arrest, search and seizure procedure
under the law.69 Some bona fide arrests and seizures in dangerous
drugs cases result in the acquittal of the accused because drug
enforcement op-

_______________

66 People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 637.
67 People v. Obmiranis, G.R. No. 181492, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 140,
156-157.
68 People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 173477, February 26, 2010, 613 SCRA 763.
69 People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 762, 784-
785, citing People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259,
277-278.

823

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 823

People vs. Martinez

eratives compromise the integrity and evidentiary worth of the

seized items. It behooves this Court to remind law enforcement
agencies to exert greater effort to apply the rules and procedures
governing the custody, control, and handling of seized drugs.
It is recognized that strict compliance with the legal prescriptions
of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible. Thus, as earlier
stated, non-compliance therewith is not necessarily fatal. However,
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

the lapses in procedure must be recognized, addressed and explained

in terms of their justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been
preserved.70
On a final note, this Court takes the opportunity to be
instructive on Sec. 1171 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and

_______________

70 Id., at p. 785.
71  Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.—The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the
following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”;
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or “ecstasy”, paramethoxyamphetamine
(PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma
hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs
and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity
possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by
the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the
penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the

824

824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

Sec. 1572 (Use of Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165, with regard
to the charges that are filed by law enforcers. This Court notes the
practice of law enforcers of filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases
where the presence of dangerous drugs as basis for possession is
only and solely

_______________

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” is ten (10) grams or more but

less than fifty (50) grams;

(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and
a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams
or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine
hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine
hydrochloride or “shabu”, or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
MDMA or “ecstasy”, PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the
quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300)
grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a
fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five
(5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana
resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”, or other
dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or “ecstasy”, PMA, TMA, LSD,
GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives,
without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
72 Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs.—A person apprehended or arrested,
who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test,
shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a
government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this
Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer
the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable
where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of
any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the
provisions stated therein shall apply.

825

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 825

People vs. Martinez

in the form of residue, being subsumed under the last paragraph of

Sec. 11. Although not incorrect, it would be more in keeping with
the intent of the law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead in order to
rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use, provided that there is a
positive confirmatory test result as required under Sec. 15. The
minimum penalty under the last paragraph of Sec. 11 for the
possession of residue is imprisonment of twelve years and one day,
while the penalty under Sec. 15 for first time offenders of drug use is
a minimum of six months rehabilitation in a government center. To

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

file charges under Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone would

frustrate the objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and
provide them with an opportunity to recover for a second chance at
life.
In the case at bench, the presence of dangerous drugs was only in
the form of residue on the drug paraphernalia, and the accused were
found positive for use of dangerous drugs. Granting that the arrest
was legal, the evidence obtained admissible, and the chain of
custody intact, the law enforcers should have filed charges under
Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165 or for use of dangerous drugs and, if there
was no residue at all, they should have been charged under Sec. 1473
  (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings). Sec. 14 provides that the maximum
penalty under Sec. 1274 (Posses-

_______________

73  Section 14. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other

Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings.
—The maximum penalty provided for in Section 12 of this Act shall be imposed upon
any person, who shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body,
during parties, social gatherings or meetings, or in the proximate company of at least
two (2) persons.
74  Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs.—The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six
(6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand
pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming,

826

826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

sion of Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other

Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) shall be imposed on any person
who shall possess any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. Under Sec. 12, the maximum
penalty is imprisonment of four years and a fine of P50,000.00. In
fact, under the same section, the possession of such equipment,
apparatus or other paraphernalia is prima facie evidence that the
possessor has used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have
violated Sec. 15.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to rehabilitate

drug users, this Court thus calls on law enforcers and prosecutors in
dangerous drugs cases to exercise proper discretion in filing charges
when the presence of dangerous drugs is only and solely in the form
of residue and the confirmatory test required under Sec. 15 is
positive for use of dangerous drugs. In such cases, to afford the
accused a chance to be rehabilitated, the filing of charges for or
involving possession of dangerous drugs should only be done when
another separate quantity of dangerous drugs, other than mere
residue, is found in the possession of the accused as provided for in
Sec. 15.
WHEREFORE, the August 7, 2009 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. HC-NO. 03269 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and another judgment entered ACQUITTING the accused
and ordering their immediate release from detention, unless they are
confined for any other lawful cause.

_______________

administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body:
Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are
required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the
practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing
guidelines thereof.

The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia

fit or intended for any of the purposes enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be
prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to
himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to
have violated Section 15 of this Act.

827

VOL. 637, DECEMBER 13, 2010 827

People vs. Martinez

Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Director of the

Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate
implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is
directed to report to this Court within five days from receipt of this
decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished the
Director-General, Philippine National Police, and the Director-
General, Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency, for their
information and guidance.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City, is directed
to turn over the seized items to the Dangerous Drugs Board for
destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/35
9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 637

Carpio (Chairperson), Nachura, Peralta and Abad, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and set aside, accused acquitted and ordered

released immediately.

Note.—As the failure to comply with the aforesaid requirements

of the law compromised the identity of the items seized, which is the
corpus delicti of each of the crimes charged against appellant, his
acquittal is in order. (Bondad, Jr. vs. People, 573 SCRA 497 [2008])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001749713e8e387c0ff4a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/35