REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Court Of Appeals
Manila

SIXTH (6th) DIVISION

*** ***

PEOPLE OF THE *CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 16054

PHILIPPINES,
Members:
Plaintiff-Appellee,
GONZALES-SISON, M.B., Chairperson
ATAL-PAÑO, P.S.T., and
-versus- DE LEON, M.M., JJ.

MARY ANN BULLOCK y Promulgated:

ESTRADA,
Accused-Appellant. ____________________
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

DE LEON, J:

This is an appeal from the Judgment1 dated October 12, 2021,

rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Quezon City (RTC)
in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-20-08302-CR that found Mary Ann
Bullock (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002.

THE CASE

On October 28, 2020, accused-appellant was charged with

Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in an Information,2
the accusatory portion of the same reads:

“That on or about the 21st day of October 2020, in Quezon City,

* Submitted for Decision on July 7, 2023.
1 Rollo, pp. 63-70.
2 Records, pp. 4-5.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16054
DECISION Page 2 of 14
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Philippines, the above-named accused, not having been authorized by law

to possess or use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession and under her control
two (2) bricks of Marijuana leaves wrapped in transparent plastic with
markings:

RA-MAB-1 10-21-2020 containing one thousand ten point

forty one (1010.41) grams

RA-MAB-2 10-21-2020 containing one thousand fifty eight

point forty five (1058.45) grams

with a total net weight of two thousand sixty eight point eighty six
(2,068.86) grams, which after Qualitative Examination gave positive
result to the test for Marijuana, a dangerous drug, in violation of said law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”3

Upon arraignment4 on December 11, 2020, accused-appellant

assisted by her counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter,
pre-trial and trial of the case ensued.

THE FACTS

The prosecution established that on October 21, 2020, a regular

confidential informant reported to the Station Drug Enforcement
Unit (SDEU) of the Quezon City Police District Station 7 that a certain
“Nas” was peddling marijuana online through Facebook Messenger.

Acting on said information, SDEU Chief, PMAJ Alejandro

Batobalanos (Batobalanos) instructed the confidential informant to
arrange a sham purchase of one (1) kilogram of marijuana from alias
Nas. The confidential informant contacted Nas on Facebook
Messenger and the latter agreed to sell one (1) kilogram of marijuana
for Php20,000.00. They then agreed to meet at 10:30 o'clock in the
evening of the same day along EDSA Southbound near the corner of
South Road, Brgy. Bagong Lipunan ng Crame, Cubao, Quezon City.
Thereafter, Batobalanos briefed his team about the buy-bust

3 Id. at 4.
4 Id. at 201.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16054
DECISION Page 3 of 14
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

operation against accused-appellant. During the briefing, Patrolman

Rincy Altoveros (Altoveros) was designated as the poseur-buyer
while Police Senior Master Sergeant Roland Aumentado
(Aumentado) was designated as his back-up. Altoveros was handed
a genuine Five Hundred Peso (Php 500.00) bill which he marked with
his initial “RA” on the upper right portion of the bill, one (1) piece
photocopied Five Hundred Peso (Php 500.00) bill, and nineteen (19)
pieces of photocopied One Thousand Peso (Php 1,000.00) bill as buy-
bust money. It was further agreed that Altoveros would scratch his
head as the pre-arranged signal that the sale was already
consummated.

At around 10:30 o'clock in the evening, the team arrived at the

agreed meet up place. A few minutes later, accused-appellant
arrived. The confidential informant introduced Altoveros to accused-
appellant and told the latter that Altoveros wanted to buy marijuana.
When Altoveros asked for the marijuana, a certain Angelo Pesimo
(Angelo) handed over to accused-appellant a backpack containing
three (3) bricks of marijuana wrapped in transparent plastic.
Thereafter, Altoveros handed over a black pouch containing the buy-
bust money which was taken by minor Aldrin Pangilinan
(Pangilinan). Accused-appellant then brought out a brick of
marijuana from the backpack and gave it to Altoveros. Later on,
Pangilinan gave the black pouch containing buy-bust money to
accused-appellant. At that instance, Altoveros scratched his head to
signal that the sale was already consummated. Altoveros then
grabbed accused-appellant, and introduced himself as a police
officer, while his back up rushed to the area.

Then and there, in the presence of media representative Alex

Mendoza (Mendoza) and Barangay Kagawad Rosalinda Villanueva
(Villanueva), Altoveros inventoried and marked all the seized items.
Altoveros placed his markings “BB-RA-MAB 10-21-2020,” “RA-MAB-
1 10-21-2020,” and “RA-MAB-2 10-21-2020,” respectively, on the
marijuana bricks which he bought and seized from accused-
appellant. The marking of the items was documented through
photographs.5 The Inventory of Seized Items6 was also prepared at
5 Records, pp. 92; 94-95.
6 Id. at 11.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16054
DECISION Page 4 of 14
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

the area of arrest and signed by the insulating witnesses.

Photographs were likewise taken during the inventory.

While the buy-bust team headed to their station, Altoveros kept

in his custody the marijuana bricks that he purchased and recovered
from accused-appellant. At the police station, Altoveros turned over
the seized marijuana bricks to the investigator on duty, Police Senior
Master Sergeant Errol Tejares (Tejares). The turn-over was then
recorded in the Chain of Custody Form.7 Subsequently, Tejares
returned the seized items to Altoveros.

Altoveros then proceeded to the QCPD Crime Laboratory and

personally transmitted the seized items to Police Major/Forensic
Chemist Bernardo Roque (Roque) for laboratory examination. Roque
received the specimens, and his qualitative examination thereon
showed positive results for the presence of marijuana. Roque issued
Chemistry Report No. D- 1540-20208 relative to his examination of
the marijuana bricks.

After the examination, Roque placed the specimens in a

transparent plastic bag, sealed it with masking tape, and and placed
his marking “D-1540-2020 BRR,” penned his signature. He turned
over the specimens to the evidence custodian of their office, Police
Officer II Junia Tuccad (Tuccad), who, in turn, safe-kept the same in
the evidence room of the QCPD Crime Laboratory.

For her part, accused-appellant alleged that on October 21,

2020, she was with her cousin and friend at SM North Edsa, waiting
for the buyer of the shirts they were selling. While waiting, two (2)
men approached them and asked for the direction going to Cubao,
Quezon City. Suddenly, they were forcibly taken to the police station
by these men, while pointing a gun at one of them. While at the
police station, accused-appellant saw the marijuana bricks for the

first time. Thereafter, they were subjected to drug test and medical
examination.

7 Id. at 76-77.
8 Id. at 69.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16054
DECISION Page 5 of 14
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

On October 12, 2021, the RTC rendered the Judgment9 finding

the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged. The dispositive portion of the Judgment reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused

MARY ANN BULLOCK y ESTRADA GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 and she is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, and to pay
a fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).

SO ORDERED.”10

Hence, this appeal.

THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 11,
ART. II OF R.A. NO. 9165, DESPITE THE IMPROBABILITY
THAT A VALID BUY-BUST OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED
AGAINST HER.

II.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 11,
ART. II OF R.A. NO. 9165, DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS'
NON COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 OF R.A. NO. 9165, AS
AMENDED, AND THE BROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF
THE ALLEGEDLY BOUGHT AND SEIZED MARIJUANA
BRICKS.

III.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING

THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF DENIAL AND
9 Supra at Note 1.
10 Rollo, p. 70.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16054
DECISION Page 6 of 14
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ALIBI.11

Ultimately, the above issues may be consolidated into one, to

wit: whether or not the RTC erred in finding that the evidence of the
prosecution was sufficient to convict accused-appellant for violation
of Section 11, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165.

THE COURT'S RULING

The appeal is without merit.

Basic is the rule that in order to successfully prosecute an

accused charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under
Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be
established: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or object
identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is
not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and
consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 12

It is likewise indispensable for a conviction that the drugs

seized be presented in court and its identity established with moral
certainty through an unbroken chain of custody over the same. In
cases like this, it is incumbent that the prosecution must be able to
account for each link in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug
from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as
evidence of the corpus delicti.

The legality of entrapment operations involving illegal drugs

begins and ends with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Section
21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, which
took effect on August 7, 2014, provides the chain of custody rule,
outlining the procedure that police officers must follow in handling
the seized drugs, in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary
value. It reads:

“SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or

11 Rollo, pp. 35-36.
12 Regalado v. People, G. R. No. 216632, March 13, 2019.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16054
DECISION Page 7 of 14
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,

Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/
Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take
charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well
as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following
manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory
of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof.”

In this case, Altoveros properly identified accused-appellant as

the one whom he transacted with during the buy-bust operation, and
arrested after the sale took place. After being arrested in flagrante
delicto, Altoveros found in accused-appellant's possession two (2)
more bricks of marijuana, a prohibited drug, which accused-
appellant was not authorized to possess. Undoubtedly, the bricks
sold and seized from accused-appellant tested positive for marijuana,
per Chemistry Report No. D- 1540-202013 dated October 22, 2020
issued by Forensic Chemist Roque. Upon presentation of these
marijuana bricks in court, Altoveros identified them to be the same
items he bought and recovered from accused-appellant through the
markings that he placed on the same, specifically, BB-RA-MAB 10-21-
20 with his signature for the brick subject of the buy-bust operation,
and RA-MAB-1 10-21-20 and RA-MAB-2 10-21-20, both with his

signature, for the bricks recovered from accused-appellant after the

sale. Indeed, the prosecution's pieces of evidence collectively
established accused-appellant's guilt for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs.

13 Supra, Note 8.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16054
DECISION Page 8 of 14
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Accused-appellant also harps on the buy-bust team's failure to

use ultraviolet powder on the buy-bust money. It bears stressing that
People v. Unisa14 clarified that there is nothing in R.A. No. 9165 or its
Implementing Rules which requires the buy-bust money to be dusted
with ultra-violet powder before it can be legally used in a buy-bust
operation. Thus, accused-appellant's argument has no leg to stand
on.

There is likewise no merit in accused-appellant's contention

that the identity and integrity of the marijuana bricks were not
properly preserved, as the apprehending officers failed to comply
with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 on the chain of custody requirement,
since the Inventory of Seized Evidence was neither signed by her nor
her representative or counsel.

It bears to note that the law only requires the accused, or her
representative or counsel, or the insulating witnesses to be present
during the inventory. However, the accused, or her representative or
counsel, is not required to sign the copies of the inventory of the
seized items. Only the signatures of the insulating witnesses are
mandatory in the inventory report.15 The accused shall not be
required to affix her signature in the seized item and the inventory
report.16 Instead, the apprehending officers shall state in their
inventory report that it was conducted in the presence of the accused,
or her representative or counsel, and the insulating witnesses. 17
Again, only the signatures of the insulating witnesses are mandatory
in the inventory report.

Accused-appellant likewise argues that the mandatory

witnesses were not present during the actual buy-bust operation. She
likewise questions the absence of a representative from the National
Prosecution Service (NPS).

It suffices to stress that elected Barangay Kagawad Villanueva

14 G.R. No. 185721, September 28, 2011.
15 People v. Ma. Del Pilar Rosario C. Casa, G.R. No. 254208, August 16, 2022.
16 Id.
17 Id.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16054
DECISION Page 9 of 14
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

and Media Representative Mendoza were immediately present

during the inventory of the seized items which was conducted at the
very place of accused-appellant's arrest.

Accused-appellant’s reliance on the ruling in People v.

Tomawis,18 holding that the presence of the mandatory witnesses
must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly
at the time of the warrantless arrest, is misplaced. The factual milieu
of Tomawis case is not on all fours with the present case. In
Tomawis, the inventory was not conducted immediately at the place
of arrest, but at the barangay hall. There was also no compliance with
the three (3) witness rule, as there were no witnesses from the DOJ
and the media. The elected barangay officials who acted as witnesses
were “only called to go to the barangay hall x x x after the arrest and
seizure that had been done in Starmall, Alabang — to ‘witness’ the
inventory made by the PDEA at the barangay hall.”

In the present case, the inventory was conducted at the very

place of the arrest and in the presence of the media representative
and elected barangay official as required under R.A. No. 10640.

The Supreme Court in the fairly recent case of Nisperos v.

People19 clarified, thus:

“We are not unmindful of the fact that the presence of the
mandatory witnesses at the time of apprehension may pose a serious risk
to their lives and to the buy-bust operation. However, since they may also
be present "near" and not necessarily "at" the place of apprehension, We
stress that they are not required to witness the arrest and the seizure or
confiscation of the drugs or drug paraphernalia. They need only be readily
available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory.”
Moreover, as brilliantly expounded by Justice Alfredo
Benjanmin Caguioa in his separate Concurring Opinion20 in the
Nisperos case:

“It must be clarified that Tomawis, and the cases that reiterated it,
never proposed nor required that the insulating witnesses should
accompany the buy-bust team in every phase of the operation or in the
18 G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018.
19 G.R. No. 250927. November 29, 2022.
20 Id.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16054
DECISION Page 10 of 14
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

very execution of the buy-bust as if they were part of the buy-bust team.
Rather, what these cases emphasized was precisely what the ponencia now
holds - and that is, that the insulating witnesses should be "readily
available."

We likewise cannot countenance accused-appellant's argument

that the prosecution failed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized shabu.”

To add, R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, now

only requires, aside from the accused or her representative, two (2)
witnesses to be present during the physical inventory and
photographing of the seized items, namely: ( 1) an elected public
official; and (2) either a representative from the NPS or the media.21

Moreover, the fact that the markings on the subject marijuana

bricks did not include the date, time and place where the markings
were made, is inconsequential. Neither R.A. No. 9165 nor its
implementing rules and regulations expressly require that the
specific time, date and place where the markings were made be
included in the markings.

It is basic that the links that must be established in the chain of

custody in a buy-bust operation are: (i) the seizure and marking of
the dangerous drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; (ii) the turnover of the dangerous drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (iii) the turnover by
the investigating officer of the dangerous drug to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination; and, (iv) the turnover and submission of

the marked dangerous drug seized by the forensic chemist to the

court.22

Contrary to accused-appellant's contention that the proper

handling of the marijuana bricks was not satisfactorily established,
the Court finds that there is no break in the chain of custody in this
case, considering that the custody and possession of the seized items

21 People v. Maganon, G.R. No. 234040, June 26, 2019 citing People v. Lim, September 4, 2018, G.R. No.
231989.
22 Largo v. People, G.R. No. 201293, June 19, 2019.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16054
DECISION Page 11 of 14
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

at every stage were properly documented and well accounted for.

Notably, Altoveros was in possession of the seized marijuana

bricks from the time of accused-appellant's arrest. He remained in
possession of the marijuana bricks when he marked the same and
conducted the inventory. Again, said inventory was done at the place
of arrest and in the presence of accused-appellant, Barangay
Kagawad Villanueva and Media Representative Mendoza. Further,
the Inventory of Seized Items was signed by the insulating
witnesses.

Indubitably, the requirement under Section 21, Article II of R.A.

No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, that the marking and
inventory be performed in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
her representative or counsel, an elected public official AND a
representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof, was satisfied.

As for the second and third links in the chain of custody,

records show that while Altoveros turned over the seized bricks of
marijuana to the investigator on duty, Tejares, it was, however,
established that Altoveros was later instructed by Tejares to
personally deliver the seized marijuana bricks to the QCPD Crime
Laboratory. Thus, Altoveros personally delivered the same to
Forensic Chemist Roque.

Anent the fourth link, after examination, Forensic Chemist

Roque placed the bricks of marijuana in a transparent plastic bag,
sealed it with masking tape, and placed his marking “D-1540-2020
BRR,” and his signature thereon. He then turned over the specimens
to the evidence custodian of their office, Tuccad, who, in turn, safe-
kept the same in the evidence room of the QCPD Crime Laboratory.
Thereafter, pursuant to a subpoena issued to her, Tuccad brought the
subject specimens to the trial court for the taking of the
representative samples thereof. This Court, thus, finds no
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16054
DECISION Page 12 of 14
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

circumstance whatsoever that would cast any doubt that the fourth
and final was not satisfied.

Considering that the prosecution was able to satisfactorily

establish an unbroken chain of custody, the integrity and evidentiary
value of the illegal drug confiscated from accused-appellant was
preserved.

Against the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, all that

accused-appellant could muster is the defense of denial and alibi. To
begin with, this Court observe that she failed to proffer sufficient,
competent and independent evidence to support and bolster her
defense of denial. In any event, accused-appellant's denial and alibi
must fail in the light of her positive identification by the prosecution's
witnesses in open court to be the same person who they caught red-
handed selling a brick of marijuana and to whom an additional two
(2) marijuana bricks were seized. Accused-appellant's bare denial,
therefore, cannot prevail over such positive identification made by
the prosecution witnesses.23 Moreover, accused-appellant's alibi was
inherently weak, as she failed to prove that it was physically
impossible for her to be present at the scene of the crime.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is DENIED.

The Judgment dated October 12, 2021 rendered by the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 79, Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-20-
08302-CR that found accused-appellant Mary Ann Bullock guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drug
Act of 2002, is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

SO ORDERED.

23 People v. Bongalon, G.R. No. 125025, January 23, 2002.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16054
DECISION Page 13 of 14
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MAXIMO M. DE LEON
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARLENE B. GONZALES-SISON
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
PERPETUA SUSANA T. ATAL-PAÑO
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16054
DECISION Page 14 of 14
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARLENE B. GONZALES-SISON
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Sixth Division