9/8/2020 [ G.R. No.

209078, September 04, 2019 ]

THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]
JOSEPH VILLASANA Y CABAHUG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

Evidence seized as a result of an illegal warrantless arrest cannot be used against an accused
pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution. Even if the seizure was reasonable, the
arresting officers' unjustified noncompliance with the legal safeguards under Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165 compromises the integrity of the confiscated drug. This creates
reasonable doubt on the conviction of the accused for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assailing the Decision2[2] of the Court
of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision[3] convicting Joseph Villasana y
Cabahug (Villasana) of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The Court of Appeals, in a
subsequent Resolution,[4] denied his Motion for Reconsideration.

In an Information filed on January 6, 2005, Villasana was charged with violation of Article II,
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for
illegal possession of "one (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing 0.15 gram of white
crystalline substance Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu)[.]"[5]

On arraignment, Villasana pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.[6]

During pre-trial, the prosecution and defense stipulated on the following:

1. The jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused and the offense;

2. The identity of the accused;

3. That Police Officer 2 Ronald Sanchez (PO2 Sanchez) is the officer-on-case who received
the evidence from PO3 Louie Martinez (PO3 Martinez), the arresting officer;

4. That PO2 Sanchez prepared the letter-request for laboratory examination;

5. That the letter-request, along with the evidence, was turned over to PO3 Martinez for
delivery to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory;

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&hit… 1/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

6. That PO3 Martinez delivered the specimen together with the letter-request for laboratory
examination to the Crime Laboratory, Sangandaan, Caloocan City;

7. That the January 5, 2005 letter-request for laboratory examination was received by the
office of Police Inspector Albert Arturo (Inspector Arturo) from the Station Anti-Illegal
Drugs Special Operation Unit, Valenzuela City Police Station, along with a small plastic
evidence bag marked as SAID-SOU/VCPS 04-12-05 containing one (1) piece of small
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance marked as "JCV";

8. That after the qualitative examination, Inspector Arturo found that the contents of the
plastic sachet yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, as stated in
Physical Sciences Report No. D-006-05;

9. That Inspector Arturo is a duly qualified forensic chemist of the Northern Police District
Crime Laboratory Office, Caloocan City Police Station; and

10. That Inspector Arturo has no personal knowledge of the source of the evidence and the
circumstances surrounding the confiscation/custody and safekeeping of the subject
evidence.[7]

The prosecution presented PO3 Martinez as its first witness. He alleged the following:

At around 7:00 p.m. on January 4, 2005, while PO3 Martinez was on duty at the Station Anti-
Illegal Drugs Special Operation Unit of the Valenzuela City Police Station, a confidential
informant arrived and reported that Jojo Villasana and Nida Villasana were rampantly selling
drugs along Hustisya Street, Marulas, Valenzuela City. Thus, a team headed by Police Inspector
Muammar A. Mukaram (Inspector Mukaram) with SPO1 Arquillo, PO3 Soriano, PO3 Britana,
PO2 Sanchez, PO3 Martinez, PO2 Magno, PO2 Malinao, PO2 Salvidar, and PO1 Pajares as
members, was at once formed to conduct surveillance operations.[8]

At about 11:30 p.m. that day, the team proceeded to the target area on board three (3) vehicles: a
car, a Revo van, and a motorcycle.[9] PO3 Martinez, PO3 Soriano, and PO2 Magno parked on
Hustisya Street and waited inside the van. Around 10 to 15 minutes later, they saw, through the
van's tinted front windshield,[10] Villasana coming out of an alley around five (5) to six (6)
meters away.[11] He was holding a plastic sachet while talking to a woman.[12] The police
officers approached him discreetly.[13]

As he reached Villasana, PO3 Martinez held his hand and introduced himself as a police officer.
[14] He told Villasana not to throw the plastic sachet, to which the latter replied, "panggamit ko

lang to"[15] After verifying that Villasana was indeed holding shabu, PO3 Martinez arrested him
and confiscated the sachet.[16] The woman, however, was able to escape.[17]

Villasana and the seized drug were brought to the Marulas Barangay Hall, where an inventory
was made.[18] The inventory was signed by Kagawad Jose Mendez (Kagawad Mendez) and a

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&hit… 2/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

certain Artemus Latoc (Latoc),[19] a former official.[20] PO3 Martinez marked the confiscated
item with Villasana's initials, "JCV," in the "office."[21] Then, he brought Villasana and the
seized specimen to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in Caloocan City for drug
testing and laboratory examination.[22]

After PO3 Martinez's testimony, the prosecution and defense agreed to dispense with the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses PO2 Sanchez, Inspector Mukaram, and Police
Superintendent Caday.[23]

For the defense,[24] Villasana testified that at around 8:00 p.m. on January 4, 2005, Villasana
was having a conversation with Sabel and Diane inside a jeepney, which was then parked in
front of his house in Karuhatan, Valenzuela City.[25] Not far from them, a group of police
officers arrived and accosted several persons that were playing cara y cruz.[26] One (1) of the
police officers, PO2 Sanchez, called Villasana to come out.[27] He did as asked, but as he
alighted from the jeepney, PO2 Magno grabbed him by the waist and forced him to board a car
parked behind the jeepney.[28] He tried to resist, but the arresting officers overpowered him.[29]

Villasana was brought to the Narcotics Office on the second floor of the Valenzuela City Hall,
[30] where they waited for his brother and sister who were supposed to bring P50,000.00 as

"areglo."[31] His siblings, however, did not show up.[32] At around 10:00 p.m., Villasana was
brought to the Marulas Barangay Hall, where he was asked to sign a document.[33] The police
officers showed him the alleged evidence against him and told him that he would be charged
with a drug-related offense.[34]

On October 28, 2010, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision[35] convicting Villasana.
The dispositive portion of the Decision read:

WHEREFORE, accused JOSEPH VILLASANA y CABAHUG is hereby found

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11 of Article
2 of R.A. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 16-V-05. Accordingly, the said accused is
hereby ordered to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one
(1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum.
Further, the said accused is ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php) 300,000.00.

The Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is directed to turn over to PDEA the drugs
used as evidence in this case for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.[36]

Villasana appealed before the Court of Appeals. He argued that the trial court gravely erred: (1)
in finding the evidence admissible despite the illegality of his arrest; (2) in finding him guilty
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&hit… 3/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

despite the police officers' failure to comply with Article II, Section 21 of Republic Act No.
9165; (3) in giving full credence to the prosecution witness' testimony; and (4) in convicting
him despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[37]

In its March 11, 2013 Decision,[38] the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court
Decision in toto:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby

DENIED and the October 28, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
171 in Valenzuela City in Criminal Case No. 16-V-05 is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto.

SO ORDERED.[39] (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)

The Court of Appeals held that there was a valid warrantless arrest because Villasana "was
caught inflagrante delicto of having in his possession an illegal drug."[40] It also found that the
police officers had probable cause to apprehend Villasana, as he matched the description given
by the informant, and was also found at the place specified by the informant. It further noted
that when they apprehended him, they found in his possession a sachet containing white
crystalline substance, which turned out to be shabu.[41]

In any case, the Court of Appeals held that Villasana was already estopped from questioning the
legality of his arrest since he failed to move for the quashing of the Information before his
arraignment. Neither did he raise the issue of his warrantless arrest prior to or during the
proceedings before the trial court.[42]

The Court of Appeals gave no merit to Villasana's claim on noncompliance with the guidelines
on custody and disposition of the seized items.[43] It gave credence to PO3 Martinez's
testimony, in which he stated that after confiscating the sachet containing the illegal drug, he
marked it with "JCV,"[44] and along with PO2 Sanchez and PO2 Magno, brought it to the
Marulas Barangay Hall where it was inventoried in the presence of Villasana, Kagawad
Mendez, and the other barangay tanods, and later to the Crime Laboratory for examination. The
Court of Appeals held that, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the police officers,
the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duty applied.[45]

The Court of Appeals further held that procedural infirmities in the custody of dangerous drugs
are insufficient to render the seized items inadmissible in court as evidence,[46] so long as their
integrity was shown to be preserved, as in this case.[47]

Villasana filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied in the Court of Appeals' August
28, 2013 Resolution.[48]

Hence, this Petition[49] was filed. Respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&hit… 4/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

the Solicitor General, filed its Comment.[50]

Petitioner assails his conviction on the grounds that: (1) his warrantless arrest was invalid and
the drug allegedly seized from him was inadmissible in evidence;[51] (2) there were
irregularities in the custody and the police officers' handling of the seized shabu, such as
inconsistent markings and the marking itself not done at the place of the arrest;[52] and (3) there
was noncompliance with the inventory and photograph requirements under Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165.[53]

Respondent counters that petitioner purely raises questions of fact that are proscribed in a Rule
45 petition.[54] At any rate, it contends that because petitioner entered his plea without
objection, he waived his right to question any irregularity in his arrest. Also, even if there was
no waiver of the issue, respondent claims that petitioner's arrest was valid as he was caught in
flagrante delicto possessing shabu.[55]

Respondent adds that noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21[56] did not render the
seizure of the dangerous drug void since the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item
were preserved.[57] Finally, it contends that the chain of custody of the seized specimen—from
inventory until submission to the Crime Laboratory—was already stipulated upon and is
considered a judicial admission on the part of petitioner.[58]

This Court resolves the following issues:

First, whether or not factual issues can be raised in a Rule 45 petition; and

Second, whether or not the guilt of petitioner Joseph Villasana y Cabahug was proven beyond
reasonable doubt.

This Court grants the Petition. The prosecution failed to prove petitioner's guilt.

As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court.[59] This Court is not a trier of facts.[60] It is not our function to review
evidence all over again.[61] Furthermore, the factual findings of the trial court, especially when
upheld by the Court of Appeals, are generally given great weight[62] considering the trial court's
unique position to directly observe a witness' demeanor on the stand.[63]

A departure from the general rule, however, may be warranted where facts of weight and
substance have been overlooked, misconstrued, or misapplied.[64] In Lapi v. People,[65] this
Court said:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&hit… 5/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

This Court is not precluded from reviewing the factual findings of the lower courts,
or even arriving at a different conclusion, "if it is not convinced that [the findings]
are conformable to the evidence of record and to its own impressions of the
credibility of the witnesses." The lower court[s'] [f]actual findings will not bind this
Court if facts that could affect the result of the case "were overlooked and
disregarded[.]"[66] (Citations omitted)

As will be discussed later, several circumstances in this case, if properly appreciated, would
lead to a conclusion different from what was arrived at by the Regional Trial Court and the
Court of Appeals.

II

The prosecution failed to establish probable cause to justify the in flagrante delicto arrest of
petitioner. Thus, the ensuing seizure of the shabu purportedly in his possession is unlawful, and
the seized drug is, therefore, inadmissible in evidence.

Under the 1987 Constitution, all citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and
seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and effects.[67] As a rule, a search and seizure must be
carried out with a search warrant validly issued by a judge upon personal determination of
probable cause;[68] otherwise, the search becomes unreasonable. It follows that any item or
article obtained from such search cannot be used as evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
[69]

Jurisprudence, however, has recognized several exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
[70] Among these exceptions is a search incidental to a lawful arrest.[71] In this instance, the

lawful arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be reversed.[72]

A lawful arrest may be effected with or without a warrant. The instances of lawful arrest
without warrant are provided in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, which states:

SECTION 5. Arrest Without Warrant; When Lawful. — A peace officer or a private

person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is

actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&hit… 6/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while

being transferred from one confinement to another. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 5(a) refers to an in flagrante delicto arrest, and requires compliance with the "overt act
test," as explained in People v. Cogaed:[73]

[F]or a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be affected, "two elements must

concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he [or
she] has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer."[74] (Citation omitted)

Section 5(b), on the other hand, requires that at the time of the arrest, an offense had just been
committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the
accused had committed it.

In both instances, the police officer must have personal knowledge of the commission of an
offense. Under Section 5(a), the officer himself or herself witnesses the crime; in Section 5(b),
the officer knows that a crime has just been committed[75] and had witnessed some facts that led
him or her to believe that the person about to be arrested committed the offense.[76]

On several occasions, this Court has invalidated[77] warrantless arrests and ensuing searches and
seizures for the arresting officers' failure to comply with the overt act test, or for their lack of
personal knowledge that a crime has just been committed by the accused.

In Comerciante v. People,[78] this Court ruled that the warrantless arrest was not lawful because
the arresting officers failed to determine beforehand that a criminal activity was ongoing. It
remarked that it was highly implausible that the police officer would be able to identify—
especially around 10 meters away and while aboard a motorcycle cruising at a speed of 30
kilometers per hour—minuscule amounts (0.15 gram and 0.28 gram) of white crystalline
substance inside two (2) very small plastic sachets held by the accused. This Court further held
that merely "standing around with a companion and handing over something to the latter
cannot in any way be considered criminal acts."[79]

Similarly, in Sindac v. People,[80] this Court held that considering that the arresting officer was
five (5) to ten (10) meters away from when a man allegedly handed the accused a plastic sachet
containing suspected shabu, it was highly doubtful that the officer was able to reasonably
ascertain that a crime was being committed. It held:

Considering that PO3 Peñamora was at a considerable distance away from the
alleged criminal transaction (five [5] to ten [10] meters), not to mention the atomity
of the object thereof (0.04 gram of white crystalline substance contained in a plastic
sachet), the Court finds it highly doubtful that said arresting officer was able to
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&hit… 7/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

reasonably ascertain that any criminal activity was afoot so as to prompt him to
conduct a lawful in flagrante delicto arrest and, thereupon, a warrantless search.
These similar circumstances were availing in the cases of Comerciante v. People and
People v. Villareal where the Court likewise invalidated the in flagrante delcito (sic)
arrest and ensuing warrantless search. In this relation, it should also be pointed out
that no criminal overt act could be properly attributed to Sindac so as to rouse any
reasonable suspicion in the mind of either PO3 Penamora or PO1 Asis that Sindac
had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. Sindac's
actuations of talking to and later on, receiving an unidentified object from Canon,
without more, should not be considered as ongoing criminal activity that would
render proper an in flagrante delicto arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[81] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

In this case, PO3 Martinez was about six (6) to ten (10) meters away when he saw petitioner
emerge from an alley, talking to a woman while holding a plastic sachet. His testimony fails to
state that he had personal knowledge that the sachet contained shabu, or that he saw the sachet
containing white crystalline substance, to create a reasonable suspicion that the sachet did
indeed contain shabu. From all indications—the time of the arrest being 11:30 p.m., PO3
Martinez's location, and the tinted front windshield of the van through which he was looking—it
was highly doubtful that PO3 Martinez saw, let alone deciphered, the contents of the sachet.[82]
For sure, it was only when he held petitioner's hand[83] and confiscated the plastic sachet that he
was able to verify its contents.[84]

What appears from PO3 Martinez's narration of facts is that petitioner was arrested: (1) because
of the informant's tip that he was selling drugs;[85] and (2) because he was known to PO2
Magno and PO2 Sanchez.[86]

It is settled that "reliable information" provided by police assets alone is not sufficient to justify
a warrantless arrest.[87] There must be independent circumstances perceivable by the arresting
officers suggesting that a criminal offense is being committed to comply with the exacting
requirements of Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. An accused must perform some overt
act within plain view of the police officers indicating that she or "he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime."[88] None was present in this case.

With petitioner's arrest being illegal, the subsequent seizure of the shabu allegedly in his
possession becomes "unreasonable." At this point, it must be emphasized that petitioner's failure
to question his arrest before he made his plea only affects the jurisdiction of the court over his
person[89] and does not bar him from raising the inadmissibility of the illegally seized shabu. A
waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of
the evidence obtained during the illegal arrest.[90]

Because the dangerous drug was unlawfully seized, it cannot be used as evidence against
petitioner. Without the dangerous drug, petitioner's acquittal based on reasonable doubt is
inevitable.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&hit… 8/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

III

Likewise, petitioner's imputation of irregularities in the custody and the police officers' handling
of the seized shabu is well taken. From the facts on record, the police officers had compromised
the integrity of the shabu purportedly seized from him.

The corpus delicti in the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs consists in the
dangerous drug itself, without which no conviction of the accused can be obtained.[91] It is
indispensable for the State to establish the identity of the dangerous drugs, the integrity of
which must have been preserved.[92] This requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the drugs
seized from the accused and subsequently examined in the laboratory are the same drugs
presented in court as evidence.[93]

Toward this end, each link in the chain of custody of the seized drug must be accounted for[94]
to show that there was no "tampering, alteration[,] or substitution either by accident or
otherwise."[95]

In Mallillin, Jr. v. People,[96] this Court expounded on the rationale behind the exacting
requirements of Republic Act No. 9165 in prosecutions for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs:

Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is

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

A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily

identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their
composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood,
or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the
same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from
other cases — by accident or otherwise — in which similar evidence was seized or
in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in
authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases
involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting
standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if
only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&hit… 9/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

another or been contaminated or tampered with.[97] (Emphasis supplied, citations

omitted)

The first and crucial stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs and other
related items immediately upon confiscation from the accused.[98] In People v. Gonzales,[99]
this Court explained:

The first stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the dangerous drugs or
related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items
by the apprehending officer or the poseur- buyer of his initials or signature or other
identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator
immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied,
because succeeding handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items will use the
marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the
dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are
confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings,
thereby forestalling switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. In short, the
marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or
related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary
value.[100] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

Here, PO3 Martinez stated during trial that he marked the seized sachet with accused-appellant's
initials "JCV" in the "office." But the office—whether in the Marulas Barangay Hall where
Villasana was supposedly first brought, or in the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation
Unit—remained unclear from his testimony. In any case, it is manifest that the seized drugs
were not immediately marked upon seizure, and the records do not show why it was not done at
the earliest possible opportunity.

More importantly, there is no clear showing that the marking had been done in the presence of
petitioner or his representative. This can be gleaned from PO3 Martinez's testimony both on
direct and cross-examination:

Q You said you were able to confiscate from the accused a plastic sachet
containing shabu, if that small plastic sachet will be shown to you, will you be
able to identify the same?
A Yes, sir.

Q Why would you be able to identify that piece of sachet which you were able to
recover from the accused?
A I put the initial of the suspect.

Q I am showing to you a small piece of plastic sachet with marking JCV . . . will
you please take a look at this and tell us what is the relation of this piece of

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&… 10/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

small plastic sachet with that small plastic sachet which you said you were able
to recover from the accused?
A This is the one I recovered from the accused.

Q Now there is a marking here JCV, who put this marking?

A I, sir.

Q Where were you at that time when you put this marking JCV?
A In the office.[101]

....

Q So where did you bring Jojo Villasana after his apprehension?

A After his arrest, we made an inventory report and requested for drug test and
brought him to the barangay.

Q So you brought Jojo Villasana first to your office to prepare the documents for
drug test and for the marking of evidence after his arrest?
A We brought him directly to the barangay because the entries were only
handwritten.[102]

Moreover, while it was stipulated that PO3 Martinez delivered the specimen together with the
letter-request for laboratory examination to the Crime Laboratory in Sangandaan, Caloocan
City, it is unclear who actually received the confiscated plastic sachets and had their custody
and possession before they were examined by Inspector Arturo.

The identity of the person who received the sachet, the condition in which it was received from
PO3 Martinez, and the condition in which it was delivered to Inspector Arturo for analysis are
all important. This is due to the variance in what was stated in these documents—the Request
for Laboratory Examination referred to "One small plastic evidence bag marked as SAID-
SOU/VCPS 04-12-05 containing one (1) pc small plastic sachet . . . marked as 'JCV'";[103]
Physical Science Report No. D-006-05 referred to "One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag
with markings 'SAID-SOU/VCPS 04-01-05' containing 0.15 gram of white crystalline substance
and marked as A-1"[104] The discrepancies in the markings create doubt as to whether the
specimen allegedly seized from petitioner and submitted to the Crime Laboratory was the same
one examined by Inspector Arturo, and subsequently presented in court.

Furthermore, there was noncompliance with the legal requirements under Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165. Section 21 defines the procedure to be followed by the apprehending
officers to ensure the integrity of the seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia.[105]

Section 21 relevantly provides:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&h… 11/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

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|||
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Republic Act No. 9165, [June 7,
2002]) — ...

(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[.] (Emphasis supplied)

Conformably, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No.
9165 states:

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. — .
...

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of

the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted
at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]
(Emphasis supplied)

This Court mandated a strict adherence to the requirements of Section 21 considering the
indistinct nature of illegal drugs that makes it easily susceptible to tampering, alteration, or
substitution.[106] The minuscule amount involved here—0.15 gram—makes it even more
imperative for the police officers to follow the prescribed procedure.[107] Consequently,
noncompliance produces doubt on the origins of the seized items.[108]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&… 12/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

Here, the inventory sheet was not signed by representatives from the media and the Department
of Justice, and there were no photographs taken. These procedural lapses happened despite the
conduct of a briefing[109] prior to the operation and PO3 Martinez's supposed experience in the
conduct of drug-related operations.[110] PO3 Martinez neither tendered any justification in
court, nor was there any explanation or justification by the apprehending officers in the case
records.

In People v. Jaafar,[111] this Court held that the exception under Section 21 (a) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 "will only be triggered by the
existence of a ground that justifies departure from the general rule."[112] For the proviso to
apply, the prosecution must prove that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for the noncompliance;
and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.[113]

In People v. Battling,[114] this Court stressed:

The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance with
the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the
positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that during the trial
proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived
deviations from the requirements of law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure
must be adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the
rules on evidence. It should take note that the rules require that the apprehending
officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground
in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve
the integrity of the seized items. Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the
quantity of illegal drugs seized is minuscule, since it is highly susceptible to
planting, tampering or alteration of evidence.[115] (Emphasis supplied, citations
omitted)

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, therefore, gravely erred in ruling that there
was an unbroken chain of custody despite the arresting officers' failure: (1) to mark the
confiscated plastic sachets immediately upon seizure and in the presence of petitioner or his
representative; (2) to comply with the inventory and photographing requirements; (3) to identify
the individual who received the specimen from PO3 Martinez and took its custody before being
given to Inspector Arturo for examination; and (4) to explain the discrepancies in the
identification of the specimen as indicated in the Request for Laboratory Examination and
Physical Science Report No. D-006-05.

The police officers' unjustified noncompliance with the requirements for the marking and
inventory of the seized drugs overthrows the presumption of regularity in the performance of
their official duty.[116] Their "ostensibly approximate compliance"[117] is not enough, and
therefore, tantamount to a failure to establish the corpus delicti. This raises reasonable doubt in
petitioner's favor.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&… 13/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The March 11, 2013 Decision and August 28,
2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 34596, which affirmed in toto the
October 28, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 171, are
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Petitioner Joseph Villasana y Cabahug is ACQUITTED.

SO ORDERED.

Peralta, (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Inting, JJ., concur.

November 8, 2019

NOTICEOFJUDGMENT

Sirs / Mesdames:

Please take notice that on September 4, 2019 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by
the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office
on November 8, 2019 at 3:10 p.m.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III

Deputy Division Clerk of Court

[1] Filed under Rule 45.

[2] Rollo, pp. 34-48. The Decision dated March 11, 2013 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 34596 was
penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and concurred in by Associate Justices Michael
P. Elbinias and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Thirteenth Division of the Court of Appeals,
Manila.

[3]Id. at 73-83. The Decision dated October 28, 2010 in Criminal Case No. 16-V-05 was penned
by Presiding Judge Maria Nena J. Santos of Branch 171, Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela City.

[4]Id. at 50-51. The Resolution dated August 28, 2013 was penned by Associate Justice Isaias P.
Dicdican and concurred in by Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Nina G. Antonio-
Valenzuela of the Thirteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&… 14/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

[5] Id. at 35.

[6] Id.

[7]
Id. at 73-74, RTC Decision. The rollo at other times indicated that Sanchez was designated as
PO3. The cited page mistakenly stated "JVC."

[8] Id. at 74-75.

[9] TSN dated August 13, 2007, pp. 5-6.

[10]
Id. at 7 and 22-23. On direct examination, PO3 Martinez testified that PO3 Soriano and PO2
Magno was with him. However, when he was asked on cross-examination who his companions
were, he said PO2 Magno and PO2 Sanchez.

[11] Id. at 6-7.

[12] Rollo, p. 37.

[13] TSN dated August 13, 2007, p. 8.

[14] Id.

[15] Id. at 8-9.

[16] Id. at 9.

[17] Id. at 25.

[18] Id. at 11-12.

[19] RTC records, p. 10, Drug Inventory Form.

[20] TSN dated August 13, 2007, p. 13.

[21] Id. at 11.

[22] Id. at 13-14.

[23] Rollo, p. 38.

[24]Id. at 39. The testimony of Villasana was corroborated by Diana Rose Latiza, one (1) of the
two (2) girls he was with inside the jeepney, regarding the circumstances surrounding his arrest.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&… 15/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

[25] TSN dated August 4, 2008, pp. 4-5.

[26] Id. at 6.

[27] Id. at 8 and rollo, p. 39.

[28] Id. at 8-9.

[29] Id at 9.

[30] Id. at 15.

[31] Id. at 16-17.

[32] Id. at 17.

[33] Id. at 18-19.

[34] Id. at 21.

[35] Rollo, pp. 73-83.

[36] Id. at 82-83.

[37] Id. at 40-41.

[38] Id. at 34-48.

[39] Id. at 47.

[40] Id. at 43.

[41] Id. at 43-44.

[42] Id. at 44.

[43] Id.

[44] Id. at 45. The CA Decision mistakenly states “JVC.”

[45] Id.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&… 16/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

[46] Id.

[47] Id. at 46.

[48] Id. at 50-51.

[49] Id. at 11-32.

[50] Id. at 133-149.

[51] Id. at 21-22.

[52] Id. at 22-24.

[53] Id. at 24-25.

[54] Id. at 139.

[55] Id. at 141-142.

[56] Id. at 144.

[57] Id. at 146-147.

[58] Id. at 144-145.

[59] Lapi v. People, G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019, <
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64967 > [Per J. Leonen, Third
Division] and Dela Cruz v. People, 776 Phil. 653 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

[60] Id.

[61] Concepcion v. People, G.R. No. 243345, March 11, 2019, <
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65121 > [Per J. Caguioa, Second
Division].

[62] People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].

[63] Regalado v. People, G.R. No. 216632, March 13, 2019, <
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65041 > [Per J. Leonen, Third
Division] and Magno v. People, 516 Phil. 72 (2006) [per J. Garcia, Second Division].

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&… 17/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

[64] Sy v. People, 671Phil. 164 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division]; San Juan v. People, 664
Phil. 547 (2011) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division]; and People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010)
[Per J. Brion, Second Division].

[65] G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019, <

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64967 > [Per J. Leonen, Third
Division].

[66] Id.

[67]CONST., art. III, sec. 2 provides:

SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.

[68] People v. Cogaed, 740 Phil. 212 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

[69] CONST., art. III, sec. 3(2).

[70]Sy v. People, 671 Phil. 164 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division] and Mallillin, Jr. v.
People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

[71]RULES OF COURT, Rule 126, sec. 13 provides:

SECTION 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched
for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search warrant.

[72]
Sy v. People, 671 Phil. 164 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division] and Malacat v. Court of
Appeals, 347 Phil. 462 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].

[73] 740 Phil. 212 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

[74] Id. at 238.

[75]Peralta v. People, G.R. No. 221991, August 30, 2017, 838 SCRA 350 [Per J. Perlas-
Bernabe, Second Division].

[76] J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in Macad v. People, G.R. No. 227366, August 1, 2018, <
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64433 > [Per J. Gesmundo, Third
Division].

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&… 18/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

[77] People v. Edaño, 738 Phil. 463 (2014) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]; Antiquera v. People,
723 Phil. 425 (2013) [Per J. Abad, Third Division]; and People v. Villareal, 706 Phil. 511 (2013)
[Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].

[78] 764 Phil. 627 (2015) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].

[79] Id. at 640-641.

[80] 794 Phil. 421 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe. First Division].

[81] Id. at 433.

[82] TSN dated August 13, 2007, pp. 23 and 26.

[83] Id. at 8.

[84] Id. at 9.

[85] Id. at 19.

[86] Id. at 24.

[87] Sindacv. People, 794 Phil. 421 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division] and People v.
Tudtud, 458 Phil. 752 (2003) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

[88] People v. Tudtud, 458 Phil. 752, 775 (2003) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

[89] Dominguez v. People, G.R. No. 235898, March 13, 2019, <
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65275 > [Per J. Caguioa, Second
Division].

[90]
Antiquera v. People, 723 Phil. 425 (2013) [Per J. Abad, Third Division]; and People v.
Racho, 640 Phil. 669 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division].

[91]People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; People v. Edaño,
738 Phil. 463 (2014) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]; and Valencia v. People, 725 Phil. 268
(2014) [Per J. Reyes, First Division].

[92]People v. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017, 837 SCRA539 [Per J. Leonen,
Third Division].

[93] People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018, <
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64255 > [Per J. Peralta, Second

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&… 19/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

Division]; and People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

[94]People v. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017, 837 SCRA 539 [Per J. Leonen,
Third Division].

[95] Valencia v. People, 725 Phil. 268, 277 (2014) [Per J. Reyes, First Division].

[96] 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

[97] Id. at 588-589.

[98]People v. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017, 837 SCRA 529 [Per J. Leonen,
Third Division].

[99] 708 Phil. 121 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

[100] Id. at 130-131.

[101] TSN dated August 13, 2007, pp. 10-11.

[102] Id. at 25.

[103] RTC records, p. 3.

[104] Id. at 4.

[105]People v. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017, 837 SCRA 529 [Per J. Leonen,
Third Division].

[106] People v. Acub, G.R. No. 220456, June 10, 2019, <
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65228 > [Per J. Leonen, Third
Division] and Valencia v. People, 725 Phil. 268 (2014) [Per J. Reyes, First Division].

[107] People v. Bayang, G.R. No. 234038, March 13, 2019, <
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65011 > [Per J. Peralta, Third
Division]; People v. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017, 837 SCRA 529 [Per J.
Leonen. Third Division]; People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division]; and People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

[108]People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487 [Per J. Leonen, Third
Division]; and People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

[109] TSN dated August 13, 2007, p. 20.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&… 20/21
9/8/2020 [ G.R. No. 209078, September 04, 2019 ]

[110] Id. at 17.

[111] 803 Phil. 582 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

[112]Id. at 593 citing People v. Pringas, 558 Phil. 579 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third
Division].

[113] People v. Acub, G.R. No. 220456, June 10, 2019, <
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65228 > [Per J. Leonen, Third
Division]; and People v. Pagaduan, 641 Phil. 432 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].

[114] G.R. No. 230717, June 20, 2018, <

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64220 > [Per J. Peralta, Second
Division].

[115] Id.

[116] See People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018, <
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64255 > [Per J. Peralta, Second
Division].

[117]People v. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017, 837 SCRA 529 [Per J. Leonen,
Third Division].

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: January 29, 2020

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

Supreme Court E-Library

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=65477&Index=%2ad0e0e936b466a758b3cf27764c7bfcb1&HitCount=62&… 21/21