Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution
dated June 26, 2023, which reads as follows:

“G.R. No. 246587 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-

appellee, versus RANDEL VILLANUEVA y MIGUEL, accused-appellant).

—
After a review of the Decision dated May 17, 2018, of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CR HC No. 09074; the Decision dated January 25,
2017, of Branch 7, Regional Trial Court, Aparri, Cagayan (RTC), in Criminal
Case No. II-12366; and, the Briefs filed by the plaintiff-appellee’ and the
accused-appellant,* the Court resolves to GRANT the appeal and REVERSE
the CA Decision.

The rule on chain of custody in

drugs cases

To sustain a conviction for the offense ofillegal sale of dangerous drugs

under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the prosecution must be able
to establish with moral certainty the identity of the confiscated drug. To
remove any doubt or uncertainty as to the identity and integrity of the seized
drug, it must be proven that the substance illegally sold by the accused is the
same substance offered and identified in court. This requirement is known
as the chain of custody rule. Chain of custody has been defined as “the duly
recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each
stage, from the moment of confiscation tothe receipt in the forensic laboratory
for examination until it is presented to the court.”

The chain of custody rule is provided for under Section 21, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640,’ which was passed on July
15, 2014. Considering that the illegal act of selling dangerous drugs was
allegedly committed by accused-appellant Randel Villanueva y Miguel
(Villanueva) on October 2, 2014, the revised chain of custody rule applies in
this case. In this regard, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended
by R.A. No. 10640, provides that:

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 ofdangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for
proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of

the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia
and/or
laboratory equipment shall,
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 person/s 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 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[.] (Emphasis supplied)

From the foregoing, the following are the links that must be established
in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation:

1. The first link is the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;

2. The second link refers to the turnover of the illegal drug seized by
the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;

3. The third link pertains to the turnover by the investigating officer of

the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and

4. The fourth link is the turnover and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

While non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements

will not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and
invalid, this is true only when (i) there is a justifiable ground for such non-
compliance, and (ii) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved. Thus, any divergence from the prescribed procedure must
be justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated contraband. Absent any of the said conditions, the non-
compliance is an irregularity, a red flag, that casts reasonable doubt on the
identity of the corpus delicti.

The prosecution failed to establish the

first link

The first link in the chain of custody involves the seizure, marking, and
conduct of inventory of the seized dangerous drug. In People v. Somira,'* the
Court, citing its ruling in People v. Zakaria, emphasized the importance of
this first link as follows:

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized

dangerous drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized
from the accused, for the marking upon seizure is the starting point in the
custodial link that succeeding handlers of the evidence will use as reference
point. Moreover, the value of marking of the evidence is to separate the
marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence
from the time of seizure from the accused until disposition at the end of
criminal proceedings, obviating switching, “planting” or contamination of
evidence. A failure to mark at the time of taking of initial custody imperils
the integrity of the chain of custody that the law requires.

Consequently, in People v. Casa (Casa), the Court ruled that as a

general rule, the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized
items must be conducted at the place of seizure, and that as an exception, such
inventory and taking of photographs may be done at the nearest police station
or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer or team when practicable:

As current jurisprudence stand, in case of warrantless seizures, the

inventory and taking of photographs generally must be conducted at the
place of seizure. The exception to this rule where the physical inventory and
taking of photographs of the seized item may be conducted at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer or team is
when the police officers provide justification that:

1.
It is not practicable to conduct the same at the place of seizure;
or

2. The items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger

at the place of seizure.
Nevertheless, in People v. Pacnisen, the Court reminded that in buy-
bust situations, or warrantless arrests, the physical inventory and
photographing are allowed to be done at the nearest police station or at the
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. But even
in these alternative places, such inventory and photographing are still
required to be done in the presence of the accused and the insulating
witnesses. (Citations omitted)

Moreover, in Nisperos v. People (Nisperos),'’ the Court adopted the

following guidelines in the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs of
seized dangerous drugs:

In order to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, particularly our
law enforcement officers, the Court hereby adopts the following
guidelines:

1. The marking of the seized dangerous drugs must be done:

a. Immediately upon confiscation;

b. At the place of confiscation; and

c. In the presence of the offender (unless the offender eluded

the arrest);

2. The conduct of inventory and taking of photographs of the

seized dangerous drugs must be done:

a. Immediately after seizure and confiscation;

b. 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; and

c. Also in the presence of the insulating witnesses, as follows:

i. if the seizure occurred during the effectivity of R.A. No.

9165, or from July 4, 2002 until August 6, 2014, the
presence of three (3) witnesses, namely, an elected
public official; a Department of Justice (DOJ)
representative; and a media representative;

ii. if the seizure occurred after the effectivity of R.A. No.

10640, or from August 7, 2014 onward, the presence of
two (2) witnesses, namely, an elected public official;
and a National Prosecution Service representative or a
media representative.

3. In case of any deviation from the foregoing, the prosecution

must positively acknowledge the same and prove (1)
justifiable ground/s for non-compliance and (2) the proper
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized item/s.'* (Emphasis supplied)
Based on the foregoing, the inventory and taking of photographs of the
seized dangerous drugs must be done immediately after their seizure and
confiscation. In this regard, the Court ruled in Casa that “the phrase
‘immediately after seizure and confiscation’ means that the physical inventory
and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made
immediately after, or at the place of apprehension.”'

Consequently, the
insulating witnesses are also required “to be at or near the intended place of
the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing
of the seized and confiscated drugs ‘immediately after seizure and
confiscation.

In People v. Bartolini, the Court ruled that the failure of the

apprehending officers to immediately mark the seized dangerous drug casts

doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti, which warrants an acquittal

based on reasonable doubt, thus:

In this case, we find that the prosecution failed to sufficiently

establish the first link in the chain of custody. There was a failure to mark
the drugs immediately after the items were seized from Bartolini. The
items were marked only at the police station and the prosecution
offered no reasonable explanation as to why the items were not
immediately marked after seizure. We have previously held that the
failure to mark the drugs immediately after seizure from the accused
cast doubt on the prosecution’s evidence, which warrants an acquittal
on reasonable doubt.

XXXX

This Court has been consistent in holding that the failure of the
authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on
the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duties.

There have been cases when the Court relaxed the application of
Section 21 and held that the subsequent marking at the police station is
valid. However, this non-compliance is not fatal only when there are (1)
justifiable grounds and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved. And while the amendment of RA 9165 by
RA 10640 now allows the conduct of physical inventory in the nearest
police station, the principal concern remains to be the preservation of
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. In this case,
however, the prosecution offered no explanation at all for the non-
compliance with Section 21, more particularly that relating to the immediate
marking of the seized items. This non-explanation creates doubt on whether
the buy-bust team was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value
of the items seized from Bartolini.” (Emphasis supplied)

In People v. Manalo, the Court acquitted the accused due to the failure
of the prosecution to show that the arresting officers strictly complied with
the chain of custody rule. In the said case, the marking of seized drugs was
conducted at the barangay hall, and not at the place of arrest immediately after
seizure. The Court ruled:

The prosecution failed to show that the arresting officers strictly

complied with the procedure. Neither did it justify the arresting officers’
non-compliance.

The marking of the seized drugs was not done at the place of
arrest immediately after seizure. It is undisputed that following
Manalo’s arrest, they proceeded to the Barangay Hall of Maura, with
the items remaining unmarked. The seized items were evidently
exposed to possible switching, planting, and contamination. When asked
by the trial court why marking was not done at the place of arrest but at the
barangay hall, PO3 Nolasco, the poseur-buyer, simply replied “for
security purposes.” (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, it is undisputed that the marking and inventory of the seized
drugs were conducted at the barangay hall of Barangay Minanga, Aparri,
Cagayan, and not at the residence of Villanueva, where the arrest was made.
Clearly, the marking was not done immediately upon seizure and at the place
of confiscation, and the inventory was not conducted immediately after
seizure, in violation of the guidelines prevailing in jurisprudence, as
consolidated in Casa and Nisperos.

Admittedly, the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of R.A. No. 9165, as

amended by R.A. No. 10640 contains a saving proviso to the effect 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.” However, in order for the saving
proviso to apply, the prosecution must first recognize and explain the lapse or
lapses in procedure committed by the arresting officers. That did not happen
in this case. Neither the prosecution nor the apprehending officers offered
any justification for the non-compliance with the procedure required under
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. This unjustified
departure from the chain of custody rule casts doubt on the prosecution’s
evidence.

The fourth link was not proven

In People v. Rivera, the Court discussed in detail the required

stipulations to establish the fourth link when the parties opt to dispense with
the testimony of the forensic chemist who conducted laboratory examination
on the dangerous drugs, thus:

As regards the fourth link, case law provides that it is of paramount

necessity that the forensic chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the
handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination, i.e.,
when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying
labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the
container it was in. Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name
and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the
subject specimen.

Thus, as a rule, the forensic chemist must testify as to the foregoing

matters in order to show compliance with the fourth link. Nonetheless, in
People v. Pajarin, the Court ruled that in case of a stipulation by the
parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic
chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have
testified that he took the precautionary steps required in order to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.”’
(Emphasis supplied)

As such,
if the forensic chemist’s testimony is dispensed with, the
parties must agree to stipulate that: (a) the forensic chemist received the seized
article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (b) he or she resealed it after
examination of the contents; and (c) he or she placed his or her own marking
on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. Without
these stipulations, the fourth link cannot be established, which will result in
the acquittal ofthe accused.

Moreover, in People v. Ubungen, the Court ruled that absent any

testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal
drug allegedly seized after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the
chain of custody of the said illegal drug could not be reasonably established.

In this case, the parties opted to dispense with the testimony of PSI
Tuazon, the Forensic Chemist. In lieu thereof, the defense counsel stipulated
that PSI Tuazon conducted the laboratory examination on the two plastic
sachets subject of the case and that as a result of the examination, he executed
a Chemistry Report.

As found by the RTC, the contents of the Chemistry Report prepared

by PSI Tuazon are as follows:

SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:

Two (2) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet each containing white
crystalline substance having the following markings and net weights:

A-—EXHA RDC 10-02-14 with signature — 0.0444 gram;

B-—EXHB RDC 10-02-14 with signature —0.0278.xxx

PURPOSE OF THE LABORATORY EXAMINATION:

To determine the presence of dangerous drug/s. xxx

FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on specimens A and B gave
POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of Methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. xxx
CONCLUSIONS:
Specimens A and B contain Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug. xxx

Based on the foregoing, the parties simply stipulated that PSI Tuazon
conducted the laboratory examination on the seized dangerous drugs and the
said examination showed that the seized drugs tested positive for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.

Clearly, this stipulation is insufficient to establish the fourth link of the

chain of custody. First, the stipulation did not establish that PSI Tuazon
received the seized drugs as marked, properly sealed, and intact; that he
resealed the items after examination of the contents; and, that he placed his

own marking on the items. Second, there was no stipulation as to the

precautionary measures adopted by PSI Tuazon to ensure the integrity of the
seized dangerous drugs. Third, there was no testimony as to the manner the
seized items were managed, stored, preserved, or handled at the crime
laboratory after it was examined by PSI Tuazon and before the same were
delivered to the RTC for identification.

Without these required stipulations, the fourth link in the chain of

custody could not be reasonably established.

The lapses committed by the prosecution and the apprehending officers

could not be considered minor. Indeed, establishing every link in the chain of
custody is crucial to the preservation of the integrity, identity, and evidentiary
value of the seized items. Failure to demonstrate compliance with even just
one of these links creates reasonable doubt that the items confiscated from the
accused are the same items offered in evidence, as in this case.

In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the dangerous drug allegedly seized from Villanueva had
not been adequately preserved. The lapses and significant gaps in the chain
of custody cast serious doubts and taint the integrity of the corpus delicti.
Consequently, the Court acquits Villanueva ofthe crime charged against him.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision, dated May

17, 2018, of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CR HC No. 09074, which
affirmed the Decision, dated January 25, 2017, of Branch 7, Regional Trial
Court, Aparri, Cagayan, in Criminal Case No. II-12366, is REVERSED.

Accused-appellant Randel Villanueva y Miguel is ACQUITTED of the

crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as
amended, in Criminal Case No. I-12366 before Branch 7, Regional Trial
Court, Aparri, Cagayan on the ground of reasonable doubt and he is
ORDERED RELEASED immediately from detention, unless he is being
held in custody for other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of

the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation.
The Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court, within five
(5) days from receipt of this Resolution, the action taken in compliance with
this order.

Let entry ofjudgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED.