CERTH:J,.

ED fRUE COPY

--~,~
Cieri.: of Court
11-d Division

MAY 0 8 2019
l\epublic of tbe ~bilippine~
~upreme <!Court
;!Manila

THIRD DIVISION

AUGUSTO REGALADO y G. R. No. 216632

LAYLAY,
Petitioner, Present:

PERALTA, J., Chairperson,

LEONEN,
-versus- REYES, A., JR.,
HERNANDO, and
CARANDANG,* JJ.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:

Respondent. ~h :L.3, 201,

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assailing the Court

of Appeals January 29, 2015 Decision2 in CA-G.R. CR No. 36216. The
Court of Appeals upheld the Regional Trial Court November 23, 2011
Decision3 in Criminal Case No. 08-03 finding Augusto Regalado y Laylay
(Regalado) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Article II, Section
11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of2002.

On January 31, 2003, two (2) informations were filed before the
Regional Trial Court, charging Regalado with two (2) counts of violating
Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. 4 The informations read:

Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.
I
Rollo, pp. 12-38. Filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Id. at 40-52. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Nonnandie B. Pizarro, and concurred in
by Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Pedro B. Corales of the Sixteenth Division, Court of
Appeals, Manila.
Id. at 78-89. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Antonina M. Calderon-Magtubo of Branch
94, Regional Trial Court, Boac, Marinduque.
Id. at 41.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 216632

In Crim. Case No. 08-03:

That on or about the 171h day of December 2002, at around 2:00

o'clock (sic) in the afternoon, at barangay (sic) Sibuyao, municipality (sic)
of Torrijos, province (sic) of Marinduque, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did[,] then
and there[,] wil[l]fully, unlawfully[,] [and] feloniously possess Cannabis
Sativa (Marijuana) weighing not more than 300 grams, not being
authorized by law to possess the same.

CONTRARY TO LAW

In Crim. Case No. 09-03:

That on or about the 171h day of December 2002, at around 2:00

o'clock (sic) in the afternoon, at barangay (sic) Sibuyao, municipality (sic)
of Torrijos, province (sic) of Marinduque, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did[,] then
and there[,] wil[l]fully, unlawfully[,] [and] feloniously possess Cannabis
Sativa (Marijuana) weighing not more than 300 grams, not being
authorized by law to possess the same.
5
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis in the original, citations
omitted)

On arraignment, Regalado pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged.

Trial then ensued. 6

According to the prosecution, on December 17, 2002, a team of five

(5) police officers led by Special Police Officer 2 Quirino Pefiascosas (SP02
Pefiascosas ), with designated poseur-buyer PO 1 Dario Pedrigal (PO 1
Pedrigal), P02 Rodrigo Llante (P02 Llante), POI Macrino Romeo Palma,
and PO I Manuelito Palma, conducted a buy-bust operation. 7

At around 2:00 p.m. that day, POI Pedrigal went to Regalado's house
while the rest of the team stayed about 200 meters behind him. There, PO 1
Pedrigal asked Regalado's wife, Marilyn, "Meron kayo ngayon, bibili ako?" 8
Marilyn informed him that her husband was not in the house and that she
would ask her daughter to fetch him. 9

When Regalado arrived, he immediately inquired where PO 1 Pedrigal

came from, to which he replied that he was from Marlangga. Regalado then
J
Id. at 41--42.
Id. at 42.
Id. at 42--43.
Id. at 43.
9
Id.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 216632

asked POI Pedrigal the quantity he sought to buy, to which the latter replied
that he wanted two (2). 10

Regalado went into his house, returning with a plastic sachet

suspected to contain marijuana, which he then exchanged with PO I
Pedrigal's marked bills amounting to P200.00. Regalado took the money
and put it in his pocket.

At this point, PO 1 Pedrigal scratched his head-the pre-arranged

signal signifying to the team that the transaction had been consummated.
The rest of the team rushed to Regalado's house and identified themselves as
police officers. They arrested Regalado after PO 1 Pedrigal retrieved the
marked money from his pocket. 11

Upon the arrest, PO I Pedrigal asked Regalado, "Meron pa itong

kasamahan?" 12 to which Regalado admitted having more, pointing to the
roof of his house. He turned over to PO I Pedrigal a milk box that allegedly
had two (2) plastic sachets and four (4) sticks of marijuana. POI Pedrigal
kept all the confiscated pieces of evidence. 13

The police officers informed Regalado of his constitutional rights in

Tagalog. Then, after informing Barangay Captain Isidro Palomares of what
had transpired, they brought Regalado to the police station. 14

At the police station, PO 1 Pedrigal marked with initials "AR" the

three (3) plastic sachets and four (4) sticks of suspected marijuana. He later
turned them over, along with the marked money, to the investigator, P02
Llante. P02 Llante then brought the seized evidence, along with a Request
for Laboratory Examination, to the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory in Canlubang, Laguna to have them tested for the presence of
illegal drugs. 15

Police Chief Inspector Loma Tria (Chief Inspector Tria), the forensic
chemist, confirmed upon a laboratory examination that the confiscated items
were indeed marijuana. The seven (7) specimens with the "AR" markings
weighed 6.40 grams, I3.93 grams, 22.60 grams, 0.49 gram, 0.40 gram, 0.36
gram, and 0.47 gram. 16 The specimens weighed a total of 44.65 grams. /J
These results were evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-284 I-02. 17 {('

10
Id. at 43.
II Id.
12
Id. at 44.
13 Id.
14 Id.
is Id.
16 Id. at 44-45.
17
Id. at 45.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 216632

In his defense, Regalado alleged that on December 17, 2002, he was

ploughing the field in his farm located about 100 meters from his house
when his son, Alvin, told him to come home. There, he was met by a
teenager who gave him P200.00, wanting to purchase marijuana. 18

As soon as Regalado gave the teenager marijuana, he stated that five

(5) police officers arrived and arrested him. POI Pedrigal recovered from
him the P200.00, which the teenager had handed him.. When asked about
the rest of his stash, Regalado immediately divulged its hiding place and
surrendered the marijuana "because he was scared." 19

Regalado denied handing the marijuana to PO 1 Pedri gal and

maintained that the latter took it from the teenager. He claimed that he
signed the confiscation receipt despite not understanding it as he did not
know how to read. He likewise testified that he was not informed of his
constitutional rights. 20

In its November 23, 2011 Decision, 21 the Regional Trial Court found
Regalado guilty of violating Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165
in Criminal Case No. 08-03. However, it acquitted him in Criminal Case
No. 09-03, ruling that one cannot be convicted twice for the same act. 22

The dispositive portion of the November 23, 2011 Decision read:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused Augusto

Regalado y Laylay is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of (sic)
violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 08-03.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to
imprisonment for a period of 12 years and one day as minimum to 14
years and eight months, as maximum and is fined P300,000 without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. He is hereby acquitted in
Criminal Case No. 09-03.

The property bond posted for .his temporary liberty is hereby

ordered cancelled.

Let the marijuana subject matter of these cases be disposed of in

the manner provided by law.

SO ORDERED. 23 (Emphasis in the original)

On appeal, Regalado argued that the trial court erred when it

appreciated the evidence despite the apprehending team's failure to prove
I
is Id.
19 Id.
zo Id.
21 Id. at 78-89.
22
Id. at 46.
23
Id. at 88.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 216632

the integrity and identity of the seized items under Section 21 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. He contended that the trial court
erred in deviating from the established rule that by itself, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty should not prevail over his
presumed innocence. 24

In its January 29, 2015 Decision, 25 the Court of Appeals denied the
appeal and affirmed the trial court's Decision:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed disposition

of the RTC in Crim. Case No. 08-03 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the
Accused-Appellant.

SO ORDERED. 26 (Emphasis in the original)

According to the Court of Appeals, the prosecution sufficiently

proved and established the elements of the crime of illegal possession of
marijuana. 27 It ruled that the prosecution's lapses were not fatal, since it had
nonetheless preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated
items. This, it held, was enough to establish Regalado's guilt. 28

Thus, on March 27, 2015, Regalado filed this Petition for Review on
Certiorari. 29

Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial
court's finding of his guilt. 30 He contends that the prosecution had no basis
to justify its failure to strictly comply with the requirements under Section
21. He maintains that there was no elected official, media representative, or
Department of Justice representative present during the physical inventory of
the seized items. Moreover, no photographs of the seized items were
presented in court. 31

Petitioner further claims that the seized items were not immediately
marked after his arrest, casting doubt on their origin. 32 He insists that there
was no sufficient evidence to establish the chain of custody. 33

This Court adopted respondent's Brief-3 4 before the Court of Appeals ;J

as its Comment. 35 /-

24
Id. at 47.
2s Id. at 40-52.
26
Id. at 51.
27 Id. at 48.
28
Id. at 49.
29 Id. at 12-38.
30
Id. at 18.
31 Id. at 19.
32 Id. at 23.
33
Id. at 25.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 216632

Respondent asserts that PO 1 Pedri gal's testimony demonstrated

petitioner's culpability, which sufficiently proved his conviction. It notes
that the police officers' testimonies were further bolstered since petitioner
does not impute any ill motive on their part. Courts, it asserts, may render
judgment based on a witness' testimony as long as it is credible and
positive. 36

Respondent argues that noncompliance with Section 21 per se will not

render the arrest illegal or the seized marijuana inadmissible, as the law itself
provides an exception. 37 It points out that the "immediate confiscation" has
no exact definition, and that marking in the nearest police station has been
previously allowed by this Court. 38

Finally, respondent claims that petitioner's admission of possessing

the seized marijuana rendered the issue of noncompliance with the chain of
custody rule as moot. 39

For resolution is the lone issue of whether or not the absence of an

elective official, a representative from the media, and a representative from
the Department of Justice during the buy-bust operation, as well as the non-
presentation of the photographs of the seized marijuana before the trial court
warrants petitioner Augusto L. Regalado's acquittal.

This Court denies the Petition.

Generally, "the findings of fact by the trial court, when affirmed by

the [Court of Appeals], are given great weight and credence on review." 40
This is because the trial court "is in the best position to assess the credibility
of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique opportunity to
observe the witnesses, their demeanor, conduct and attitude on the witness
stand." 41 Hence, this Court accords great respect to the trial court's
findings, 42 especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 43 An

34
35
Id. at 92-103.
In its July 27, 2015 Resolution (rollo, pp. 104-105), this Court required re:;pondent to comment on the
Petition for Review. Respondent filed a Manifestation (rol!o, pp. 124--127) on October 15, 2015
j
where it prayed that it be allowed to adopt its Brief filed before the Court of Appeals. This Court
noted the Manifestation in its December 2, 2015 Resolution (rollo, pp. 129--130).
36
Rollo, pp. 97-98.
37
Id. at 99.
38
Id. at 100.
39
Id. at 100-101.
40
People v. Feliciano, Jr., 734 Phil. 499, 521 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
41
Ditche v. Court ofAppeals, 384 Phil. 35, 46 (2000) [Per J. De Leon, Jr., Second Division].
42
People v. Montinola, 567 Phil. 387, 404 (2008) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division] citing People v.
Fernandez, 561 Phil. 287 (2007) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division]; People v. Abu/on, 557 Phil. 428
(2007) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc]; and People v. Bejic, 552 Phil. 555 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En
Banc].
43
People v. Baraoil, 690 Phil. 368, 377 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second Division].
Decision 7 G.R. No. 216632

exception is when either or both of the lower courts "overlooked or

misconstrued substantial facts which could have affected the outcome of the
case."44

Here, the records show nothing that warrants a reversal of the

Decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court.

The allegations in both Informations, despite the buy-bust operation,

charged petitioner with illegal possession of dangerous drugs, not sale.
Hence, the trial court correctly acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 09-03,
where the Information was worded exactly as that in Criminal Case No. 08-
03, which charged him with illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Moreover, although the actual weight of the seized items (44.65 grams) 45
was not indicated in the Informations, this error was not fatal.

As for the conviction of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the

following elements must be established: "( 1) the accused was in possession
of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2)
such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and
consciously aware of being in possession of the drug." 46

Here, the testimonies of the law enforcers who conducted the buy-bust
operation are clear and categorical. They recalled in detail the buy-bust
operation and the steps they had taken to maintain the integrity of the seized
marijuana.

Notably, the designated poseur-buyer, POI Pedrigal, clearly recounted

in his testimony the transaction and petitioner's possession of the seized
marijuana:

[PROSECUTOR]: What happened when you reached the house of

Augusto Regalado?

[POI PEDRIGAL]: When I reached the house of Augusto Regalado his

wife named Marilyn confronted me, sir.

[PROSECUTOR]: What did she do or say when she confronted you?

[POI PEDRIGAL]: I told her, sir, (sic) "meron kayo ngayon, bibili ako".

[PROSECUTOR]: What happened when you say (sic) those words?

[POI PEDRIGAL]: She told me that her husband is not in the house and
she ordered her daughter to fetch him, sir.

44
People v. Montinola, 567 Phil. 387, 404 (2008) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division] citing People v.
Fernandez, 561 Phil. 287 (2007) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division]; People v. Abu/on, 557 Phil. 428
1
(2007) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc]; and People v. Bejic, 552 Phil. 555 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En
Banc].
45
Rollo, p. 45.
46
People v. Dela Cruz y De Guzman, 744 Phil. 816, 825-826 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
Decision 8 G.R. No. 216632

[PROSECUTOR]: What happened regarding the order?

[POI PEDRIGAL]: I waited for several minutes and her daughter arrived
followed by Augusto Regalado and I asked him "meron kayo
ngayon?["]

[PROSECUTOR]: And what happened when you uttered those words to

him?
[POI PEDRIGAL]: He asked me "taga saan ka"? and I told him, from
Marlangga and he asked me how many and I told him only two (2).

[PROSECUTOR]: When you told him only two (2), what happened next?
[POI PEDRIGAL]: So, he entered the house while I waited outside near
the door and when he came out he was holding a plastic sachet and he
handed it to me and in exchange I handed to him money in different
denominations in the amount of Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00).

[PROSECUTOR]: What transpired next after you handed to him the

P200.00?
[POI PEDRIGAL]: He accepted the marked money from me and he
handed to me the plastic sachet and he put the money in his pocket and
after that I made a signal to my co-policemen and then I shouted ''pulis
aka" and then I retrieved the marked money from his pocket and we
arrested Augusto Regalado.

[PROSECUTOR]: After you retrieved the marked money and arrested

Augusto Regalado, what happened next?
[POI PEDRIGAL]: Upon his arrest, we asked him if "meron pa itong
kasamahan?" and he readily admitted and pointed to the roof of the
house. So, we requested him to get the same and he readily did so.

[PROSECUTOR]: What actually was sold to you and what actually did he
produce after he was arrested?
[PO I PEDRI GAL]: What he sold to me was a plastic sachet containing
marijuana and what he retrieved from the roof are two (2) plastic
sachets of marijuana and four (4) sticks of marijuana. 47

PO 1 Pedrigal testified that he had kept the seized items until they
were marked at the police station where they conducted the inventory. The
seized items were then turned over to P02 Llante, who also testified
bringing the items to the crime laboratory for examination. This was
confirmed by Chief Inspector Tria, the forensic chemist who prepared the
report stating that the seized items were marijuana. 48

What sustains petitioner's conviction is his damning admission in

open court that the police officers had found the three (3) plastic sachets and
four (4) sticks of marijuana in his possession during his arrest on December
17, 2002. He admitted telling the law enforcers where he had hidden the rest
of the marijuana because he was scared. 49
I
47
Rollo, pp. 95-97.
48
Id. at 49-50.
49
Id. at 86.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 216632

Ultimately, petitioner's free and conscious possession of the

dangerous drug has been established, warranting his conviction.

However, this Court laments the prosecution's apparent nonchalance

in observing the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated,
seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia under Section 21
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by Republic Act
No. 10640. It provides:

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
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and ess~mtial chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical
inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with
an elected public official and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided,
That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures and custody over said items.

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of

dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same
shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a
qualitative and quantitative examination;

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results,

which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be
issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s:
Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources
of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential
chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time
frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be
(
Decision 10 G.R. No. 216632

provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous

drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided,
however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately
upon completion of the said examination and certification[.]

These requirements under Section 21 were summarized in Lescano v.

People: 50

As regards the items seized and subjected to marking, Section

21(1) of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, requires
the performance of two (2) actions: physical inventory and photographing.
Section 21(1) is specific as to when and where these actions must be done.
As to when, it must be "immediately after seizure and confiscation." As
to where, it depends on whether the seizure was supported by a search
warrant. If a search warrant was served, the physical inventory and
photographing must be done at the exact same place that the search
warrant is served. In case of warrantless seizures, these actions must be
done "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable."

Moreover, Section 21(1) requires at least three (3) persons to be

present during the physical inventory and photographing. These persons
are: first, the accused or the person/s from whom the items were seized;
second, an elected public official; and third, a representative of the National
Prosecution Service. There are, however, alternatives to the first and the
third. As to the first (i.e., the accused or the person/s from whom items
were seized), there are two (2) alternatives: first, his or her representative;
and second, his or her counsel. As to the representative of the National
Prosecution Service, a representative of the media may be present in his or
her place. 51

In People v. Que, 52 this Court explained how Republic Act No. 10640
relaxed the requirements under Section 21(1 ):

It was relaxed with respect to the persons requirnd to be present

during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items.
Originally under Republic Act No. 9165, the use of the conjunctive "and"
indicated that Section 21 required the presence of all of the following, in
addition to "the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel":

First, a representative from the media;

Second, a representative from the Department of Justice; and

Third, any elected public official.

50
778 Phil. 460(2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
/
51
Id. at 475.
52
G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63900>
[Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
Decision 11 G.R. No. 216632

As amended by Republic Act No. 10640, Section 21 (1) uses the

disjunctive "or," i.e., "with an elected public official and a representative
of the National Prosecution Service or the media." Thus, a representative
from the media and a representative from the National Prosecution Service
are now alternatives to each other. 53 (Emphasis in the original, citations
omitted)

Here, none of the three (3) people required by Section 21 ( 1), as

originally worded, 54 was present during the physical inventory of the seized
items.

Moreover, this Court has held that the prosecution has "the positive
duty to establish that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the
representatives enumerated under Section 21 ( 1) of [Republic Act No.] 9165,
or that there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so." 55

Yet, not only did the prosecution fail to establish that earnest efforts
were employed in securing the presence of the three (3) witnesses; it did not
even bother to offer any justification for the law enforcers' deviation from
the law's requirements. Since preliminaries do not appear on record, this
Court cannot speculate why the law enforcers neglected the simple rules in
the conduct of a buy-bust operation. Nonetheless, police officers are
reminded that lapses like this-absent any justifiable ground--cast doubt on
the integrity of the seized items and can be fatal to the prosecution's cause.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals

January 29, 2015 Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 36216 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

Associat~ Justice
Chairperson

53 Id.
54
The buy-bust operation was conducted in 2002.
55
People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1053 (2012) [Per J. Sereno, Second Division].
Decision 12 G.R. No. 216632

~~
!l
fl.A •'
ANDR REYES, JR. RAMON PAULL. HERNANDO
As te Justice Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

DIOSDADQ M. PERALTA
Associ;~e Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MAY 0 6 20l9