THIRD DIVISIONPEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-appellee,-versus-GRACEVENTURAy NATIVIDAD,

Accused-Appellant.G.R. No. 184957

Present:QUISUMBING,*J.,CARPIO,Chairperson,CHICO-NAZARIO,PERALTA, andABAD,**JJ.Promulgated:October 27, 2009

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xD E C I S I O NCHICO-NAZARIO,J.:For Review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is the Decision[1]dated 30 June 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02127, entitledPeople of the Philippines v. Grace Ventura y Natividadaffirming the Decision[2]rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 78, Malolos, Bulacan, dated 20 January 2006 in Criminal Case No. 3244-M-2003, convicting Grace Ventura y Natividad (accused-appellant) of violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.[3]Accused-appellant was meted the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine ofP500,000.00.In an Information dated12 August 2003, accused-appellant Grace Ventura y Natividad and Danilo Ventura y Laloza were charged before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan with illegal sale ofshabuin violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 3244-M-2003 and raffled to Branch 78 of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.The Information contained the following allegations:The undersigned Asst. Provincial Prosecutor accuses Grace Ventura y Natividad and Danilo Ventura y Laloza @ Danny of Violation of Sec. 5, in relation to Sec. 26, Art. II of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, committed as follows:

That on or about the 10thday of August 2003, in the City of Malolos, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, in conspiracy with each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away, dispatch in transit and transport dangerous drug consisting of one (1) heat-sealedtransparent plastic sachet of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 0.124 gram.[4]

During arraignment, both accused entered NOT GUILTY pleas. Trial on the merits ensued.The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer (PO) 2 Lorenzo Sarmiento (Sarmiento) and PO3 Leonardo Magsakay (Magsakay).Accused-appellant Grace Ventura and Bernard Ventura were witnesses for the defense.PO2 Sarmiento, 37 years old, married, police officer and a resident of Sagrada Familia, Hagonoy, Bulacan, and PO3 Magsakay, 40 years old, married, police officer, and a resident of Sikatuna St., San Gabriel, Malolos, Bulacan, testified to receiving information from concerned citizens of Sto.Rosario, Malolos, Bulacan, and reports received by Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Joey Lina on the alleged involvement of Danilo alias Danny (father of accused-appellant) and accused-appellant in illegal drugs trade.On the strength of this confidential information, a surveillance operation was conducted by operatives of the Malolos Police Station in Malolos, Bulacan, two days before the buy-bust operation.Results of the surveillance operation were relayed to the chief of police, who thereafter instructed them to conduct a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant and Danilo.The team was composed of PO2 Sarmiento, PO1 Michael Silla, PO3 Magsakay, and a police asset.On10 August 2003, a briefing was conducted among the members of the buy-bust team.During said briefing, PO2 Sarmiento placed the markings LCS, which correspond to his initials, on the buy-bust money. The marked money consisted of threeP100.00 bills and oneP50.00 bill.A police asset was also designated as poseur-buyer.Both the buy-bust operation and serial numbers of the bills to be used as buy-bust money were recorded in the police blotter.Prior to proceeding with the operation, the buy-bust team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and was assigned a control number for the operation, with its pre-operational sheet signed by Hashim Maung of PDEA.After being briefed on the operation, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target site.While the members of the team positioned themselves at the alley leading towards the house of accused-appellant, the police asset went directly to the gate of Danilo and accused-appellant.The gate was approximately ten meters away from them.From where they were standing, the police officers saw the police asset knocking at the gate.Thereupon, Danilo stepped out.The police asset handed the marked money to Danilo.Danilo closed the gate and went inside the house.Moments later, Grace (accused-appellant) went out and handed something to the police asset.Indicating the sale was consummated, the police asset then executed his pre-arranged signal by touching his hair with his right hand.The police officers rushed towards the gate but accused-appellant noticed them and closed the gate.PO2 Sarmiento pushed open the gate.As PO2 Sarmiento was entering the compound, he saw a man holding a gulok.It turned out that the man holding the gulok or bolo was one of Danilos sons, Vergel Ventura, who attempted to hack PO2 Sarmiento. PO2 Sarmiento informed him that he was a police officer, but Vergel still tried to hack him with the bolo causing him to seek cover outside the gate while parrying the attack.PO3 Magsakay drew his gun and poked it at Vergel, who ran inside the house.PO2 Sarmiento entered the gate and arrested Danilo, while PO2 Magsakay arrested accused-appellant.PO1 Silla arrested Vergel.After frisking Danilo, PO2 Sarmiento recovered from him the marked money used for the buy-bust operation.The police asset handed to PO2 Sarmiento theshabuhe bought from accused-appellant.The Venturas were apprised of their rights and informed of the offense committed. Thereafter, the suspects were brought to the police station for further investigation.The testimony of forensic chemist Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria was dispensed with due to the admission of the defense as to the existence and due execution of the Request for Laboratory Examination, Chemistry Report No. D-606-2003, and the specimens subject of the examination.The laboratory examination conducted by Police Inspector (P/Insp.) and Forensic Chemical Officer Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria on the confiscated specimen yielded the following results:SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:

A-One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings LCS BB containing 0.124 gram of white crystalline substance.

PURPOSE OF THE LABORATORY EXAMINATION:

To determine the presence of dangerous drug. x x x.

FINDINGS:

Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x.

CONCLUSION:

Specimen A contains Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[5]

The defense denied all material allegations of the prosecution.GraceVentura, 28 years old, single and a resident of Sabitan, Sto. Rosario, Malolos, Bulacan testified that she was at her house along Sabitan on 10 August 2003 when she saw her brother Bernard Ventura, alias Bening, having an argument with Badong, a tricycle driver.As Badong was leaving, accused-appellant heard him threatening his brother, saying he would exact vengeance on him.Thereafter, at about3 to 4 oclockin the afternoon of the same day, a group of policemen in civilian clothes barged into their house by kicking the door.The group was apparently looking for his brother alias Bening.The group searched the house.Not satisfied, the policemen took their money and told her to point to them her brothers house.She informed them that his house was at the crossing.The policemen took her.As she was being taken by the police, she managed to tell her father, who was at the other house, to follow her because the policemen were taking her.The policemen took her to the municipal hall, where she was followed by one of her brothers an hour later and by her father half an hour later.She then saw her father talking to the policemen.Later on, both she and her father were placed inside the detention cell.On cross-examination, accused-appellant testified that she was with her father at their house in Sabitan at the time of arrest.She denied that her brother Vergel was at their house at the time, but admitted there was a pending direct assault case against him, for interfering in her and her fathers arrest.Accused-appellant admitted that it was only at the time of their arrest that she came to know of the police officers who arrested them, and that she and her father had no personal quarrel with the policemen.Accused-appellant maintained that the drugs allegedly taken from her possession were only planted by the police officers.She admitted to not filing any charges against them for the planting of evidence.On redirect, accused-appellant reiterated her testimony on direct examination that she was merely taken by the police authorities so she could show them her brothers house.She again stated that it was Bening, her brother, who had a misunderstanding with a certain Badong for the latters failure to remit the boundary for the tricycle he was driving.Bernard Ventura, alias Bening, 31 years old, married, a tricycle driver, and a resident of Sumapang Matanda, Malolos, Bulacan, testified that he was the brother of accused-appellant.On10 August 2003, he was at his house along Sumapang Matanda watching television, when a group of police officers went inside his house asking if he hadshabu.They were accompanied by Badong, the same man he had an argument with earlier that day.The policemen informed him that his father Danilo and sister, accused-appellant, had been arrested for selling prohibited drugs.He was taken to the Malolos municipal hall and charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.The case was dismissed by Branch 20 of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.He denied all the allegations against him, his father, and his sister, contending that the only reason for their arrest was the quarrel he had with Badong, who was a police asset.On9 February 2005, an order was issued by the trial court dismissing the charge against accused Danilo Ventura y Laloza pursuant to Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, after Ariel B. Santiago, warden of the Bulacan Provincial Jail, informed said court of the untimely demise of said accused in his custody.According full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 3244-M-2003 for violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing her with the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine ofP500,000.00.[6]Viaa Notice of Appeal,[7]accused-appellant sought to appeal the RTC ruling with the Court of Appeals. The case was docketed by the appellate court as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02127.The Court of Appeals gave more weight to the prosecutions claim that the entrapment operation in fact took place and denied the appeal. Concurring in the factual findings of the trial court, the appellate court resolved the appeal in this wise:WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78 of Malolos, Bulacan datedJanuary 20, 2006finding the accused-appellant Grace Ventura y Natividad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine ofP500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED.[8]

Electing to seek a final recourse before this Court, accused-appellant filed her Notice of Appeal[9]on28 July 2008.Accused-appellant filed a supplemental brief while the prosecution adopted its appellees brief earlier submitted to the Court of Appeals.Accused-appellant seeks her acquittal, praying for the reversal of the judgment of conviction in the illegal drugs case.The defense claims that the appellate court committed serious error in (a) finding the existence of an unbroken chain in the custody of theshabusubject of the buy-bust operation as well as its evidentiary value; and (b) ruling that non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal.At the heart of the defense argument is that the defense failed to account for the chain of custody of the evidence.The petition lacks merit.The presumption of innocence[10]of an accused in criminal cases is a most fundamental constitutional right that must be upheld at all times. Applying the foregoing principle, it has been established that the burden of proof is a duty borne by the prosecution.[11]Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, i.e.,He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.With this in mind, conviction of an accused must stand on the weight and strength of the evidence of the prosecution and cannot rest on the weakness of the defense.[12]The straightforward testimonies of the principal witnesses for the prosecution established that at around 3 oclock in the afternoon of 10 August 2003, a group of police officers composed of PO2 Sarmiento, PO3 Magsakay, Silla, and an asset, acting as poseur-buyer, went to the house of Danilo and accused-appellant Grace Ventura.The team was to conduct a buy-bust operation on instruction of the chief of police.Upon reaching the area, PO2 Sarmiento and PO3 Magsakay positioned themselves near the gate of accused-appellant.While they were stationed in their respective places, the police asset went to accused-appellants gate.He knocked thereon.They then saw Danilo opening the gate and stepping out.The asset handed the marked money to Danilo, who then went inside and closed the gate.A few minutes later, accused-appellant opened the gate and handed a plastic sachet containingshabuto the police asset.They then saw the police asset execute the pre-arranged signal by scratching his head, indicating that the sale had been consummated.The police officers then ran towards them, but accused-appellant managed to close the gate.PO2 Sarmiento pushed open the gate, but he was met by Vergel, the brother of accused-appellant, who was armed with a bolo and about to hack him.Attempting to parry the attacks on him, PO2 Sarmiento went out of the gate and closed it.PO3 Magsakay drew his firearm and pointed it at accused-appellants brother, who ran towards the direction of the house, but was accosted by PO1 Silla.PO3 Magsakay arrested accused-appellant inside the house, while PO2 Sarmiento arrested Danilo.Danilo was frisked upon being arrested at his house and the marked money, consisting of threeP100.00 bills and oneP50.00 bill, was recovered from him.[13]Immediately after the buy-bust operation, the police asset turned over the plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance to PO3 Magsakay at the crime scene.[14]PO3 Magsakay and PO2 Sarmiento thereafter took accused-appellant Grace, Danilo, Vergel, and the recovered evidence,i.e., marked money[15]and one plastic sachet[16]containing white crystalline substance, to the police station for further investigation.At the police station, PO2 Sarmiento marked the confiscated plastic sachet with LCS BB, corresponding to the initials of his name, Lorenzo Cruz Sarmiento, and the word buy-bust.[17]After the sachet was marked with LCS BB, a request for laboratory examination was prepared by Chief of Police and Police Superintendent Salvador I. Santos.[18]The sachet and request for laboratory examination were thereafter brought to the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office of the Philippine National Police by PO3 Magsakay.The sachet was turned over by PO3 Magsakay to PO1 Boluran of the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office.[19]At the crime laboratory, Forensic Chemical Officer and Police Inspector Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria conducted laboratory examination on the 0.124 grams of white crystalline substance found inside the plastic sachet. Per Chemistry Report No. D-506-2003, the tests performed on the specimen yielded positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.[20]It is clear from the foregoing that the identity of the seized item was duly preserved and established by the prosecution.There is no doubt that the sachet with the markings LCS BB and submitted for laboratory examination, found to be positive forshabu, was the same one sold to the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation.In prosecutions involving the illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug as evidence.[21]For conviction of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs, the following elements must concur:(1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[22]The testimonial and documentary pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case against accused-appellant establish the presence of these elements.The two police officers, PO2 Sarmiento and PO3 Magsakay, positively identified Danilo and Grace Ventura as the same persons from whom their asset purchased the plastic sachet ofshabu.As correctly found by the trial court, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses narrated the events leading towards the conclusion that accused-appellant conspired with deceased Danilo in selling the methamphetamine hydrochloride orshabu, thus:The act of accused Danilo in taking the marked money from the asset and the act of Grace in handing the plastic sachet ofshabuto the asset unmistakably shows that they were in concert and both share a common interest in selling the illegal substance. x x x.[23]

There was no need to present the poseur-buyer, since PO2 Sarmiento and PO3 Magsakay witnessed the whole transaction, where the marked money was exchanged for one sachet ofshabu.The poseur-buyer was clearly visible from where PO2 Sarmiento and PO3 Magsakay were standing.In fact, the testimony of a lone prosecution witness, as long as it is positive and clear and not arising from an improper motive to impute a serious offense to the accused, deserves full credit.Non-presentation of the informer, where his testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative, is not fatal to the prosecution's case.[24]Moreover, the testimonies of the two police operatives are aptly supported by the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, to wit: (a) Request for Laboratory Examination;[25](b) Chemistry Report No. D-606-2003;[26](c) photocopy of the marked money consisting of threeP100.00 bills and oneP50.00 bill;[27](d) the confiscated sachet containingshabu, with markings LCS BB; and (e) the pre-operation report.[28]Accused-appellants twin defenses of denial and frame-up must fail.Mere denial and allegations of frame-up have been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor, for these defenses are easily concocted.[29]These are common and standard defenses in prosecutions involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law.In a long line of cases, we have ruled that the testimonies of police officers involved in a buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit, given the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[30]This presumption can be overturned if clear and convincing evidence is presented to prove either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by an improper motive.[31]Otherwise, the police officers testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[32]Accused-appellant failed to adduce evidence to substantiate her claim of irregularity in the performance of duty on the part of the police officers. This bare allegation of irregularity in the performance of duty remained self-serving and bereft of any supporting evidence.[33]Neither was any ill motive imputed on the part of the police officers, thus failing to buttress the defenses claim of frame-up.Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, accused-appellants plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.[34] This Court realizes the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well being of society, if the courts accept in every instance this form of defense, which can be so easily fabricated.It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists.If she were truly aggrieved, it is quite surprising why accused-appellant did not even attempt to file a criminal or an administrative complaint,e.g., for planting drugs, against the arresting officers.Such inaction runs counter to the normal human conduct and behavior of one who feels truly aggrieved by the act complained of.[35]The totality of the evidence points to the fact of the sale of the prohibited drug, with the prosecution witnesses clearly identifying accused-appellant as the offender.Accused-appellant asserts that the police officers failed to account for the chain of custody of the seized item alleged to beshabu.Contrary to accused-appellants claim, there is no broken chain in the custody of the seized item, found to beshabu, from the time the police asset turned it over to PO3 Magsakay, to the time it was turned over to the investigating officer, and up to the time it was brought to the forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination.The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, among others, is provided under Section 21, paragraph 1 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as follows:(1) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, which implements said provision, stipulates:(a)The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: x x x 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.

Under the same proviso,non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.Clearly, the purpose of the procedure outlined in the implementing rules is centered on thepreservationof theintegrityandevidentiary valueof the seized items.The testimony of PO2 Sarmiento outlines the chain of custody of the confiscated item,i.e., sachet ofshabu:Q.And you said that the shabu, plastic sachet was recovered from whom?

A.The police asset immediately handed to me.

Q.What did you do with the plastic sachet that was handed by your police asset to you?

A.At the station, I placed markings, prepared the request for laboratory examination.

Q.What marking did you place on the plastic sachet?

A.BB with initial LCS.

Q.What do you mean by BB?

A.Buybust.

Q.LCS?

A.My initial.

Q.If this plastic sachet will be shown to you, will you be able to identify the same?

A.Yes, sir. This is the shabu we bought from them.

Q.We move that the plastic sachet identified by the witness be marked as Exh. B.

COURT

Mark it.

FISCAL

You said you requested for an examination of the plastic sachet ofshabu,can you tell us what was the result of the examination?

A.I have read from the result it was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

Q.I am showing you the request and the result, tell us if these are the same documents you are referring to?

A.This is the request for laboratory examination.

Q.We move that the request for laboratory examination be marked as Exh. F and the findings or result as Exh. G.

COURT

Mark them.[36]

Corroborating the statements of PO2 Sarmiento, PO3 Magsakay testified to what was done to the recovered sachet alleged to be containingshabu:Q.What about Grace Ventura and Danilo Ventura, what happened to them?

A.I arrested Grace Ventura and PO2 Sarmiento arrested Danilo Ventura.

Q.What happened when they were arrested?

A.PO2 Sarmiento recovered the marked money from Danilo Ventura.

Q.Was that all that were recovered from these 2 subjects?

A.The police asset gave the specimen and the bolo.

Q.What else?

A.No more.

Q.When the persons of the accused were restrained and all the evidences were gathered, what finally did you do?

A.We informed them that they violated Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 for selling of illegal drugs and we also informed them of their constitutional rights.

Q.After that what did you do with them?

A.Grace Ventura, Danilo Ventura and Vergel Ventura were brought to the police station for further investigation.

Q.What did you do with the specimen?

A.We prepared a request for laboratory examination and the request for drug test.

Q.Before you prepared those requests, what did you do with those documents in order to distinguish it to the other shabu that were recovered from the operation?

A.We placed the marking.

Q.And the marking that you placed?

A.The initial of PO2 Sarmiento.

Q.Which happened to be in what letters?

A.LCS.

Q.And later did you come to know the findings of the forensic chemist of the crime laboratory?

A.Positive for shabu and positive for drug test.

x x x x

Q.You claimed also that you recovered one sachet ofshabuas a result of the operation. Attached to the record is a plastic sachet containing of (sic) what appears to be white crystalline substance, what relation has this to the one that you claimed as theshabusold to your group?

A.This is the same.

PROS. MEDRANO:

It was already marked as Exh. E. We pray that the marking placed therein be submarked as E-1.

COURT:

Mark them.

PROS. MEDRANO:

Q.You made mention of a request made by your unit to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Im showing to you such document please confirm to us if this is the same document that you made mention of?

A.Yes, sir. This is the one. It was previously marked as Exh. F.We pray that the stamp mark RECEIVED of the PNP Crime Laboratory be submarked as F-1.[37]

All documentary, testimonial, and object pieces of evidence, including the markings on the plastic sachet containing theshabu, prove that the substance tested by the forensic chemist, whose laboratory tests were well-documented, was the same as that taken from accused-appellant.The foregoing evidence established and preserved the identity of the confiscatedshabu.Moreover, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.[38]Accused-appellant, in this case, bears the burden to make some showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with, to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that they properly discharged their duties.In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that accused-appellant was involved in the buy-bust operation.Having been caughtin flagrante delicto, accused-appellants participation cannot be doubted.Following the provisions of Section 5 in relation to Section 26 of Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, the illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs is penalized withlife imprisonmentto death and a fine ranging fromP500,000.00 toP10,000,000.00.The statute, in prescribing the range of penalties imposable, does not concern itself with the amount of dangerous drug sold by an accused.Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 stipulates:SEC. 5.Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. 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 sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

Section 26 of the same Act provides:Section 26.Attempt or Conspiracy. Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act:

(a)Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;

(b)Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;

(c)Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form;

(d)Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; and

(e)Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.

Applying the foregoing provisions of Republic Act No. 9165, the penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is proper.There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attending accused-appellants violation of the law, the penalty to be imposed is life imprisonment.Considering that the weight of theshabuconfiscated from accused-appellant is 0.124 gram, the amount ofP500,000.00 imposed by the courtaquo,being in accordance with law and upheld by the appellate court,is similarly sustained by this Court.WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 30 June 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02127, affirming the Decision promulgated by the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78, in Criminal Case No. 3244-M-2003, finding accused-appellant Grace Ventura y Natividad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling 0.124 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride orshabu, a prohibited drug, in violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and imposing upon her the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), is herebyAFFIRMED.In the service of her sentence, accused-appellant Grace Ventura y Natividad, who is a detention prisoner, shall be credited with the entire period during which she has undergone preventive imprisonment.SO ORDERED.SECOND DIVISIONTHE PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES,G.R. No. 182418Appellee,Present:CARPIO MORALES,J.*Chairperson,- versus -TINGA,VELASCO, JR.,LEONARDO DE CASTRO,**and

BRION,JJ.EDWIN PARTOZA y EVORA,Promulgated:Appellant.May 8, 2009x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------xD E C I S I O NTINGA,J.:On appeal is the Decision[1]of the Court of Appeals promulgated on5 October 2007affirming the conviction by the Regional Trial Court[2](RTC) ofSan Mateo, Rizal of Edwin Partoza y Evora (appellant) for the crime of possession and sale of dangerous drug.Appellant was charged in two (2) separate Informations before the Regional RTC with possession and sale ofshabu,viz:

Criminal Case No. 6524

That on or about the 2ndday of November 2002, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, direct custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance weighing 0.04 gram, which substance, after confirmatory test, was found positive to the test ofMethamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous, popularly known as shabu a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]

Criminal Case No. 6525

That on or about the 2ndday of November 2002, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another person one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet weighing 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance which gave positive result to the screening and confirmatory test forMethamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous, popularly known as shabu a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both Informations. Trial ensued.PO3 Juanito Tougan (PO3 Tougan) testified for the prosecution and narrated that on2 November 2002at around7:30 p.m., the police received an information from an informant that a certain Parto was sellingshabuat Sta. Barbara Subdivision, Brgy. Ampid I,San Mateo, Rizal.Parto had apparently been under surveillance by the police for selling prohibited drugs.They immediately planned a buy-bust operation, with PO3 Tougan acting as the poseur-buyer.Tougan received aP100.00 bill from the police chief and placed the serial numbers of the bill on the police blotter.[5]PO3 Tougan, together with PO2 Pontilla and the civilian informant then proceeded to Sta. Maria Subdivision. However, before the actual buy-bust operation, the group responded to a commotion in the area where they arrested a certain Noel Samaniego.[6]Thereafter, they went toNeptunecornerJupiter Streetand spotted Parto in the tricycle terminal.The informant initially approached appellant.The latter thenwent near the tricycle where PO3 Tougan was in and asked him, How much[?]PO3 Tougan replied, Piso lang, which meansP100.00.Uponexchangeofthe money and the plastic sachet containing the white crystalline substance, PO3 Tougan immediately alighted from the tricycle, grabbed Partos hand and introduced himself as a policeman. PO3 Tougan was able to recover another plastic sachet from the hand of Parto.[7]At the police station, the two (2) plastic sachets confiscated from Parto were marked.After marking, the police immediately prepared the request for laboratory examination.[8]Chemistry Report No. D-2157-02E confirmed that the two (2) plastic sachets seized from appellant were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, orshabu.[9]Appellant denied the charges against him.He claimed that he was driving a female passenger in his tricycle at around7:00 p.m.on2 November 2002going to Sta. Maria. Upon reachingJupiter Street, appellant turned left and noticed the police officers trying to arrest a person who was then causing trouble.PO2 then Pontilla approached appellant and asked why he was driving drunk.Appellant explained that he had been offered a drink by his friends. He was asked to alight from his tricycle, took his drivers license and invited him to go to the police station.[10]On28 April 2005, the trial court convicted appellant beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs.The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in these two cases, as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 6524 finding accused EDWIN PARTOZA Y EVORA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Possession of Dangerous Drug (Violation of Section 11, 2nd par.[,] No. 3 of Art. II of R.A. [No.] 9165) and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day to Twenty (20) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00);

2. In Criminal Case No. 6525 finding accused EDWIN PARTOZA Y EVORA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Sale of Dangerous Drug (Violation of Sec. 5, 1st par.[,] Art. II of R.A. No. 9165) and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine ofP500.000.00.

The drugs shabu confiscated from accuseds possession are forfeited in favor of the government and is directed to be turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.[11]The trial court ruled that the prosecution was able to prove that appellant had taken the money in exchange for theshabu.It gave full faith and credence to the testimony of PO3 Tougan.On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.The appellate court held that the prosecution had successfully adduced evidence which proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had sold one (1) sachet ofshabuto PO3 Tougan, who had acted as the poseur buyer during a legitimate buy-bust operation.The Court of Appeals held further that appellant, after having been validly arrested and in the course of the subsequent incidental search, had been found with another sachet ofshabuin his body.[12]Appellant elevated the case to this Court via Notice of Appeal.[13]In its Resolution[14]dated30 June 2008, this Court resolved to notify the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from notice.Both parties adopted their respective appellant's and appellee's briefs, instead of filing supplemental briefs.[15]Appellant maintains that the presumption of regularity, upon which his conviction rests, should not take precedence over the presumption of innocence.He challenges PO3 Tougans account of the events that transpired on2 November 2002considering that the police were present in the vicinity to respond to a report that Samaniego had been causing trouble and not to conduct a buy-bust operation.Appellant also questions the integrity of the evidence used against him on the grounds of failure to mark the items seized from him immediately and failure to observe the chain of custody as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.[16]The Office of the Solicitor-General (OSG), on the other hand, insists that the direct testimony of PO3 Tougan sufficiently established the elements of illegal sale and possession ofshabu.With respect to the marking, the OSG argues that PO3 Tougan held on to the sachets from the time he confiscated them from appellant until such time that he was able to place his initials on them and submitted the duly accomplished request for examination of said sachets to the crime laboratory.Finally, the OSG avers that Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 which pertains to the chain of custody and disposition of confiscated or seized drugs was not yet applicable at the time appellant committed his crimes.In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1)identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[17]What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale or had actually taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence ofcorpus delicti.[18]Otherwise stated, in illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[19]Similarly, in this case, the evidence of thecorpus delictimust be established beyond doubt.Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates thatthe apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.InPeople v. Obmiranis,[20]appellant was acquitted due to the flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from appellant, taken together with the failure of the key persons who handled the same to testify on the whereabouts ofthe exhibit before it was offered in evidence in court.[21]InBondad v. People,[22]this Court held that the failure to comply with the requirements of the law compromised the identity of the items seized, which is thecorpus delictiof each of the crimes charged against appellant, hence his acquittal is in order.[23]And inPeople v. De la Cruz,[24]the apprehending team's omission to observe the procedure outlined by R.A. No. 9165 in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs significantly impairs the prosecution's case.[25]In the instant case, it is indisputable that the procedures for the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not complied with.PO3 Tougan stated that he marked the two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance in the police station, thus:QAnd after handing to him theP100.00 bill[,] what reaction was there, if any, from this alias Parto?

AHe immediately handed to me one (1) plastic sachet containingshabu, sir.

x x x

QAfter placing him under arrest what, if any, did you do next?

AAfter holding his hand, I immediately introduced myself as a policeman, sir.

QWhat else did you do after that?

AI was able to recover another plastic sachet from his hand and also theP100.00 bill that I used in buying theshabuwith serial number EN-668932, sir.

x x x

QAnd having informed him of his constitutional rights[,] where did you take him, if any?

AIt did not take long PO2 Pontilla arrived [sic] and we brought him to the police station together with his tricycle, sir.

x x x

QAt the station[,] what happened to the two (2) plastic sachets, one that was the subject of the sale and one which was the subject of your confiscation?

AI placed my initial, sir.[26]PO3 Tougan did not mark the seized drugs immediately after he arrested appellant in the latter's presence. Neither did he make an inventory and take a photograph of the confiscated items in the presence of appellant. There was no representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected public official who participated in the operation and who were supposed to sign an inventory of seized items and be given copies thereof. None of these statutory safeguards were observed.While this Court recognizes thatnon-complianceby the buy-bust team withSection 21 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team,[27]yet these conditions were not met in the case at bar.No explanation was offered by PO3 Tougan for his failure to observe the rule.Furthermore, while PO3 Tougan admitted to have in his possession theshabufrom the time appellant was apprehended at the crime scene to the police station, records are bereft of proof on how the seized items were handled from the time they left the hands of PO3 Tougan.PO3 Tougan mentioned a certain Inspector Manahan as the one who signed the request for laboratory examination.He did not however relate to whom the custody of the drugs was turned over.Furthermore, the evidence of the prosecution did not reveal the identity of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination and pending presentation in court.The failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody is fatal to its cause.All told, the identity of thecorpus delictiin this case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.The courts below heavily relied on the testimony of PO3 Tougan and in the same breadth, banked on the presumption of regularity.InPeople v. Garcia,[28]we said that the presumption only arisesin the absence of contrary details in the casethat raise doubton the regularity in the performance of official duties. Where, as in the present case, the police officers failed to comply with the standard procedures prescribed by law, there is no occasion to apply the presumption.[29]WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated5 October 2007of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 76,San Mateo, Rizal is herebyREVERSEDandSET ASIDE.Appellant Edwin Partoza y Evora isACQUITTEDbased reasonable doubt and is ordered immediatelyRELEASEDfrom detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Decision and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.SO ORDERED.Republic of thePhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-Appellee,- versus -NORMAN SITCO and RAYMUNDO BAGTAS (deceased),Accused-Appellants.G.R. No.178202Present:CORONA,J., Chairperson,VELASCO, JR.,PERALTA,BERSAMIN,*andMENDOZA,JJ.Promulgated:May 14, 2010

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xD E C I S I O NVELASCO, JR.,J.:This is an appeal from the October 19, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00038 entitledPeople of the Philippines v. Norman Sitco y De Jesus and Raymundo Bagtas y Caparas,which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72 in Malabon, in Criminal Case Nos. 19456-MN to 19459-MN for violation of Sections 15 and 16 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6425 orThe Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The affirmed RTC decision adjudged accused-appellants Raymundo Bagtas and Norman Sitco guilty in Crim. Case No. 19456-MN for drug pushing and sentenced them toreclusion perpetua.For illegal possession of drugs, Bagtas was sentenced to two months and one day ofarresto mayor,as minimum,to one year and one day ofprision correccional, as maximum, in Crim. Case No. 19458-MN, andreclusion perpetuain Crim. Case No. 19459-MN. While the RTC convicted Sitco in Crim. Case No. 19457-MN, the CA would later overturn his conviction in this case.The FactsInCrim. Case No. 19456-MN, Sitco and Bagtas were charged with drug pushing in aninformation reading:

That on or about the 11thday of May 1998, in Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being private persons and without authority of law, conspiring[,] confederating and mutually helping with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver, in consideration of the sum of P2,000.00+, most of which were boodle or fake money to a poseur buyer[,] two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing white crystalline substance with net weight of 108.40 grams and 105.84 grams respectively, which substance when subjected to chemistry examination gave positive result for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as Shabu, a regulated [drug].[1]The other informations for illegal possession of drugs that were separately filed against either Sitco or Bagtas read as follows:

Crim. Case No. 19457-MN against Sitco (illegal possession)That on or about the 11thday of May 1998, in Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being [a] private person and without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in [his] possession, custody and control One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag, containing white crystalline substance with net weight of 20.29 grams, which substance when subjected to chemistry examination gave positive result for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as Shabu, a regulated drug.[2]

Crim. Case No. 19458-MN against Bagtas (illegal possession)

That on or about the 11thday of May 1998, in Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being [a] private person and without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag, containing white crystalline substance with net weight of 1.31 grams, which substance when subjected to chemistry examination gave positive result for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as Shabu, a regulated drug.

Crim. Case No. 19459-MN against Bagtas (illegal possession)That on or about the 11thday of May 1998, in Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being [a] private person and without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control One (1) brick of suspected marijuana with net weight of 887.01 grams, which is a regulated drug.[3]During the arraignment, both accused-appellants entered a not guilty plea to all the charges. A joint trial then ensued.Version of the ProsecutionFrom thetestimonyof the prosecution witness, Police Officer 3 (PO3) Alex Buan, the following version is gathered:Acting on a tip from an informant, Senior Inspector Gatlet of the Navotas Police Station ordered the conduct of a buy-bust operation against accused-appellants, who were allegedly selling illegal drugs onEspina St.in Navotas, Metro Manila. The team consisted of Buan, as poseur-buyer, a confidential informant, and several police operatives as back-up. Marked money, consisting of four (4) PhP 500 bills for a total of PhP 2,000 and boodles or fake money amounting to PhP 196,000, was prepared.On May 11, 1998 at 11:15 in the evening, the team proceeded to a house in the target place where Bagtas answered the knocking of the door. Thereupon, the confidential informant introduced him to Buan who, then and there, expressed his desire to buyshabu. Bagtas replied that he did not have enough supply ofshabu, but manifested thatmarijuanawas available. Buan, however, insisted on buying onlyshabu.[4]Bagtas informed Buan that someone would be delivering moreshabu. After waiting for a few minutes, a man, who turned out to be Sitco, arrived. After the usual introductions, Sitco told Buan to follow him to his motorcycle. He asked for the payment and took out a bag with two plastic bags ofshabuinside. Buan examined the contents, then identified himself as a police officer, and arrested Sitco. The back-up officers joined the scene and frisked Sitco and Bagtas. Sitco was found to have in his possession a loaded caliber .38paltikrevolver, the buy-bust money, and moreshabu.Bagtas had in his possession marijuana andshabu.[5]The seized items were sent to Forensic Chemist Grace N. Eustaquio for laboratory examination and were found positive forshabuandmarijuanaper Physical Science No. D-411-98.During trial, Buan identified accused-appellants, the four (4) PhP 500-bill marked money used, theshabuconfiscated from both accused-appellants, and themarijuanaseized from Bagtas. Buan explained during his testimony that the boodle money placed in-between the genuine marked money the buy-bust team used was unavailable as it had been confiscated by a policeman named Barlin when he himself (Buan) was arrested for violating Sec. 27 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[6]Version of the DefenseThe evidence for the defense consists of the testimonies of Sitco and Bagtas.Bagtas branded as fabricated the accusations against him and Sitco. According to him, on the day of the alleged buy-bust operation, he was busy cleaning his motorcycle when, all of a sudden, policemen, led by Buan, entered his house. Buan came armed with an armalite rifle and a .45 caliber pistol, but did not show any document to justifying the police officers entry into his (Bagtas) home. The intruders pointed guns at Bagtas, his common-law wife, his nephew, a certain Boy Macapagal, a certain Malou, a helper in his store, a girl applying for work as a househelper, and Sitco, who was visiting Buan at the time.They were ordered to lie face down as Bagtas house was being searched. He was told that he was a suspect in the killing of a Navotas policeman named Ira. After the search was done, no illegal drugs were found. Yet the police officers took his camera, tape recorder, and the cash from his stores sales. The pieces of jewelry they were wearing, including his ring and necklace, were also confiscated. Afterwards, all of them were handcuffed and asked to board the police officers vehicles. Two motorcycles belonging to Sitco and Bagtas were also seized.[7]At the police headquarters, Buan and the other police officers demanded payment for the release of Bagtas group. After some haggling, the group relented and paid some amount for their freedom. Sitco and Bagtas, however, were detained. Instead, they were handcuffed to a steel post after being blindfolded by the police.[8]Bagtas overheard the police officers dividing the jewelry among them.He was then beaten along with Sitco to extort money for their release. The police officers eventually told them to pay a reduced amount, which they still could not afford to give. Complaints were thus filed against them, with the police officers manufacturing the evidence used by the prosecution. Bagtas ended his testimony with a declaration that he was filing complaints against the police officers once he was released from detention.[9]Sitco corroborated Bagtas testimony, adding that Buan had already been dismissed from the service.[10]He testified that the police officers frisked him and confiscated his wallet, watch, ring, and motorbike. He was told that they were suspects in the killing of a Navotas policeman. At the headquarters, he claimed being tortured. Eventually, he fell asleep. When he woke up, he saw Buan with two others sniffingshabu.He declined Buans invitation to join the session. The police officer likewise instructed him to produce PhP 100,000 for his release. Sitco informed Buan that he could not afford the amount. The next day, May 12, Buan took someshabufrom the cabinet and told Sitco that the charge against him would push through if he did not pay. Sitco was also warned about the difficulty of posting bail once charged. Since he could not raise the money, the police officers brought him to the prosecutors office for inquest where manufactured evidence allegedly taken from him and Bagtas were shown to the fiscal.[11]On cross-examination, he admitted to having been previously arrested for possession ofshabuand violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866.[12]Ruling of the Trial CourtThe RTC gave full credence to the testimony of Buan and, mainly on that basis, convicted Bagtas and Sitco of the crimes charged.The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision[13]reads:WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the two accused, namely Norman Sitco y de Jesus and Raymundo Bagtas y Caparas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged against them in these cases. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances and applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (where applicable), the two accused are hereby sentenced as follows:

1) InCrim. Case No. 19456-MN:for drug pushing under Section 15, Article III, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, involving more than 200 grams of shabu, for each of them to suffer imprisonment ofreclusion perpetuaand for each of them to pay a fine in the amount of Php500,000.00;

2) InCrim. Case No. 19457-MNagainst Sitco only for illegal possession of 20.29 grams ofshabuunder Section 16, Article III, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, to a prison term ranging from SIX (6) MONTHS ofarresto mayoras minimum, to SIX (6) years ofprision correccional, as maximum;

3) InCrim. Case No. 19458-MNagainst Bagtas only for illegal possession of 1.31 grams ofshabuunder Section 16, Article III, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, to a prison term ranging from TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY ofarresto mayor, as minimum, to ONE (1) YEAR and ONE (1) DAY ofprision correccional, as maximum;

4) InCrim. Case No. 19459-MNagainst Bagtas only for illegal possession of 887.01 grams of marijuana under Section 8, Article II, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, said accused is sentenced to suffer the prison term ofreclusion perpetuaand to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

Since the death penalty was imposed, the case came to this Court on automatic review.In accordance withPeople v. Mateo,[14]however, we ordered the transfer of the case to the CA for intermediate review.

Pending CA review of the case, or on May 5, 2006, Bagtas died at theNationalBilibidPrisonHospital.Ruling of the Appellate CourtBefore the CA, Sitco argued against the credibility of Buan as witness, the latter having been involved in drug-related activities and was in fact dismissed from the service in March 1999. He also claimed that the alleged drug sale involving him was improbable as no one would sell drugs to a stranger.

On October 19, 2006, the CA acquitted Sitco of illegal possession of drugs but affirmed his conviction of the other offenses charged. It reasoned that Buans testimony was focused only on the two (2) plastic bags ofshabuwhich were the object of the buy-bust; no attempt was made to make a distinction between the said bags and the additional bag ofshabusupposedly recovered from Sitco when he was frisked. The quantum of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for illegal possession ofshabuwas, thus, not met.However, as to the other charges, the CA ruled that the factual findings of the trial court on Buans credibility must be respected and upheld.

Thefalloof the CAs Decision[15]reads:WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Joint Decision dated August 26, 1999 of the RTC of Malabon, Metro Manila, Branch 72 in Criminal Case Nos. 19456-MN to 19459 is herebyAFFIRMEDwith modificationACQUITTINGaccused-appellant Norman Sitco y De Jesus inCriminal Case No. 19457-MNfor violation of Sec. 16, Art. II of RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, on the basis of reasonable doubt. The rest of the Joint Decision stand[s].

SO ORDERED.On November 14, 2006, Sitco filed his Notice of Appeal of the appellate courts Decision.

On September 24, 2007, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. The People, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, manifested that it was submitting the case for decision based on the records previously submitted. In his Supplemental Brief, Sitco submits that PO3 Buan is not a credible witness given his arrest on drug charges and dismissal from the service.The IssueWHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS CONVICTION ON THE BASIS OF AN UNRELIABLE WITNESS.

The Ruling of the CourtWe find sufficient compelling reasons to acquit the surviving accused-appellant Sitco.Credibility of Buan as WitnessWe start with the credibility of the lone prosecution witness, Buan, whose testimony Sitco has assailed at every turn. Sitco insists and with reason that Buan cannot competently make a plausible account of something of which he himself was equally culpable.Sitcos assault on the credibility of Buan is well-taken. As it were, Buans involvement as a police officer in illegal drug activities makes him a polluted source and renders his testimony against Sitco and Bagtas suspect, at best. It is like a pot calling a kettle black.To be believed, testimonial evidence should come only from the mouth of a credible witness.[16]Given his service record, Buan can hardly qualify as a witness worthy, under the limited confines of this case, of full faith and credit. And lest it be overlooked, Buan is a rogue cop, having, per his own admission, been arrested for indulging in a pot session, eventually charged and dismissed from the police service.[17]It would appear, thus, that Buans had been a user. His arrest for joining a pot session only confirms this undesirable habit.The Court, to be sure, has taken stock of the well-settled rule that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of police buy-bust operators, and that the trial courts finding on the police-witness credibility deserves respect. Juxtaposed with this rule, however, is the postulate that when confronted with circumstances that would support a reasonable doubt in favor of the accused, then acquittal or the least liability is in order. Buans involvement in drugs and his alleged attempt to extort money from appellant Sitco in exchange for his freedom has put his credibility under a heavy cloud.The imperative of proof beyond reasonable doubt has a vital role in our criminal justice system, the accused, during a criminal prosecution, having a stake interest of immense importance, both because of the possibility that he may lose his freedom if convicted and because of the certainty that his conviction will leave a permanent stain on his reputation and name.[18]As articulated inRabanal v. People:Law and jurisprudence demand proof beyond reasonable doubt before any person may be deprived of his life, liberty, or even property. Enshrined in the Bill of Rights is the right of the petitioner to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and to overcome the presumption, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established by the prosecution.The constitutional presumption of innocence requires courts to take a more than casual consideration of every circumstances or doubt proving the innocence of petitioner.[19](Emphasis added.)

Chain of CustodyBut over and abovethe credibilityof the prosecutions lone witness as ground for acquittal looms the matter of the custodial chain, a term which has gained traction in the prosecution of drug-related cases.In prosecutions involving narcotics and other illegal substances, the substance itself constitutes part of thecorpus delictiof the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[20]Of chief concern in drug cases then is the requirement that the prosecution prove that what was seized by police officers is the same item presented in court. This identification, as we have held in the past, must be established with moral certainty[21]and is a function of the rule on chain of custody. 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.[22]The procedure to be followed in adhering to the chain of custody requirements is found in Sec. 21 of RA 9165:Section 21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

(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.

The trial court summarized the chain of custody over the evidence as follows:x x x [Sitco] asked for the money and then took from a covered part of the motorcycle a plastic bag inside [of] which were two plastic bags with shabu which Sitco gave to Buan. Buan examined the same and upon being satisfied that it was really shabu, identified himself as a policeman and arrested Sitco. Buans companions then approached and Sitco and Bagtas were frisked. Found from Sitco was a caliber .38 paltik revolver with six bullets, the buy-bust money and additional shabu. The marijuana earlier shown to Buan by Bagtas was also recovered along with the additional shabu found in the motorcycle of Bagtas which was parked nearby.

The buy-bust shabu, the marijuana and the confiscated additional shabu from Sitco and Bagtas were sent to a Forensic Chemist for laboratory examination (Exhibit A) and were found to be positive for being shabu and marijuana, respectively, by examining PNP Forensic Chemist Grace N. Eustaquio under an initial laboratory report (Exhibit B) and a final report (Physical Science No. D-411-98) marked as Exhibit C.[23]From this narration and an examination of the records, a number of disturbing questions arise as to the identification and handling of the prohibited drugs seized. It is unclear at the outset whether Buan himself made the inventory of the seized items. There is no detail as to who brought the specimens to the forensic laboratory and who received it prior to the examination by the forensic chemist. It is also uncertain who took custody of the specimens before they were presented as evidence in court. There are, thus, glaring gaps or missing links in the chain of custody of evidence, raising doubt as to the identity of the seized items and necessarily their evidentiary value. This broken chain of custody is especially significant given that what are involved are fungible items that may be easily altered or tampered with.[24]It cannot be over-emphasized that pertinent provisions of RA 9165 require that the seized illegal items shall, after their inventory, be photographed in the presence of the drug dealer, representatives of media, the Department of Justice, or any elected public official who participated in the operation. The records do not yield an indication that this particular requirement has been complied with.The Court reiterates that, on account of the built-in danger of abuse that it carries, a buy-bust operation is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that the rights of persons under criminal investigationand of the accused facing a criminal chargeare safeguarded.[25]To reiterate, the chain of custody requirement is necessary in order to remove doubts as to the identity of the evidence, by monitoring and tracking custody of the seized drugs from the accused, until they reach the court. We find that the procedure and statutory safeguards prescribed for compliance by drug enforcement agencies have not been followed in this case. A failure to comply with the aforequoted Sec. 21(1) of RA 9165 implies a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the seized illegal items as part of thecorpus delicti.[26]Although the non-presentation of some of the witnesses who can attest to an unbroken chain of custody of evidence may, in some instances, be excused, there should be a justifying factor for the prosecution to dispense with their testimonies.[27]In People v. Denoman,[28]the Court discussed the saving mechanism provided by Sec. 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165.[29]Denomanexplains that the aforementioned provision contains a saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of non-compliance will permanently prejudice the prosecutions case. The saving mechanism applies when the prosecution recognizes and explains the lapse or lapses in the prescribed procedures.[30]In this case, the prosecution did not even acknowledge and discuss the reasons for the missing links in the chain.To reiterate, in prosecutions involving dangerous drugs, the substance itself constitutes the key part of thecorpus delictiof the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[31]Taken with the uncorroborated testimony of Buan, the broken chain of custody over themarijuanaandshabuin the instant casecreates reasonable doubt on accused-appellants guilt.In a string of cases,[32]we declared that the failure of the prosecution to offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen ofshabu, and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the evidence before it was finally offered in court, fatally conflicts with every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused.As inPeople v. Partoza,[33]this case suffers from the failure of the prosecution witness to provide the details establishing an unbroken chain of custody.InPartoza, the police officer testifying did not relate to whom the custody of the drugs was turned over. The evidence of the prosecution likewise did not disclose the identity of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination and pending presentation in court.Given the prosecutions failure to abide by the rules on the chain of custody, the evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly performed cannot apply to this case. This presumption, it must be emphasized, is not conclusive. Not only is it rebutted by contrary proof, as here, but it is also inferior to the constitutional presumption of innocence.[34]On this score, we have held that while an accuseds defense engenders suspicion that he probably perpetrated the crime charged, it is not sufficient for a conviction that the evidence establishes a strong suspicion or probability of guilt. It is the burden of the prosecution to overcome the presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required.[35]This quantum of evidence has not been met in the instant case.WHEREFORE, the assailed CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00038 isREVERSEDandSET ASIDE.Accused-appellant Norman Sitco y De Jesus isACQUITTEDon reasonable doubt and is ordered immediatelyRELEASEDfrom detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections isDIRECTEDtoIMPLEMENTthis Decision and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.

SO ORDERED.People vs. PringasTrial Court and Court of Appeals found him GUILTY Issue: WON Pringas is guilty of the offenses charged despite the inadmissibility of the evidence having been obtained in violation of Sections 21 and 86, RA 9165 Ruling: YES Ratio: Pringas Arguments Police officers violated Section 86 of RA 9165 when the alleged buy-bust operation that led to the apprehension of the appellant was conducted without the involvement of PDEA. SC It was very clear in the Joint Affidavit of Arrest of Esmanaller and Matias that the buy-bust operation subject of the case was not with the involvement of the PDEA.

Non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 regarding the custody and disposition of the confiscated/seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia will make these items inadmissible in evidence. Even assuming ex gratia argumenti, there is nothing in RA 9165 which even remotely indicate the intention of the legislature to make an arrest made without participation of PDEA illegal and evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Moreover, the law did not deprive the PNP of the power to make arrests. Non-compliance will not render an accuseds arrest illegal of the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court held that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the items involved were safeguarded they were immediately marked for proper identification and forwarded to the Crime Laboratory for examination. The justifiable ground for non-compliance will remain unknown because appellant only raised the issue before the CA, which he cannot do. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Appellant was charged with violations of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of RA 9165. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) Identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) Delivery of the thing sold and payment thereof. The evidence for the prosecution showed the presence of all these elements. The elements necessary for illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) Accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug (2) Such possession is not authorized by law (3) Accused freely and consciously possessed the sad drug. All these elements have been established in the case at bar.

The conduct of a buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in an illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. The Court did not see any clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive, so the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties must be upheld. Three of his neighbours witnessed the violent Pringas failed to present them or any of them to entry made by the policemen in his house. prove his point. APPEAL DENIED. Decisions of RTC and CA AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

( Pringas was charged with Violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165 ( Pringas Defense: He denied the buy-bust operations. He claimed that he and his common-law wife Gina Dean were with their three children in their House in Beverly Street, Buting, Pasig City when somebody (later identified as Esmanaller, Mapula, Espares and Familiara) kicked the door of their house, entered without any search warrant or arrest warrant. The policemen subsequently conducted a search in the house but they neither recovered nor took anything. The violent entry was even witnessed by 3 of his neighbours who were having a drinking session. ( Matias recovered the following from Pringas house: o 3 pcs. of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance which turned out to be shabu (Methamphetamine Hydrochloride) o 2 disposable lighters o 6 strips of aluminium foil with traces of shabu (Methamphetamine Hydrochloride) o Improvised water pipe used as a tooter o Improvised burner o Wooden sealer o Small scissors o 14 pcs. Of transparent plastic sheets o 1 small needle on top of a small chair (bangkito) ( After conducting the sale, Esmanaller then arrested Pringas. He introduced himself as a police officer and informed the Pringas of his violation and his constitutional rights. ( Upon recognizing the informant, Pringas sold to Esmallaner a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance later found to be shabu, for Php100. ( On 22 Apr 2003, SP04 Tuano, Officer-in-charge of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of the Pasig City Police designated P01 Joselito Esmallaner to act as a poseur buyer in a buy-bust operation headed by SP03 Leneal Matias to be conducted against Alvin Pringas in his house in Beverly Street, Buting, Pasig City. (People v. Pringas (2007) Jackie Canlas APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Facts: