FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 257486. December 7, 2022.]

ALLAN P. MASCARIÑAS , petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution
dated December 07, 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257486 (Allan P. Mascariñas v. People of the
Philippines). — This Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
(petition) 1 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision
dated 30 January 2020 2 and Resolution dated 23 June 2021 3 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR No. 03071.
Antecedents
Petitioner Allan P. Mascariñas a.k.a. "Onggoy" (petitioner) was charged
with violating Section 11 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 17102, in an
Information dated 14 October 2014:
That on or about the 14th day of October 2014, in the
Municipality of Loon, Province of Bohol, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did
then and there, willfully and unlawfully, possess and have in his
custody and control, 5 small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets,
each containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug,
with a total net weight of 0.12 gram, without any authority or permit
to possess the same from competent government authorities, to the
damage and prejudice of the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines.
Acts contrary to Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On 10 October 2014, a search warrant was issued by Vice-Executive
Judge Leo Moises Lison against petitioner to search his residence for
dangerous drugs located in Barangay Moto Norte, Loon, Bohol. On 14
October 2014, at around 12:30 a.m., P/Insp. Dennis B. Lumor briefed a team
composed of members of the Loon Police Station and the 4th Regional Public
Safety Maneuver Company on the implementation of the said search
warrant.
PO3 Donald D. Nuera (PO3 Nuera) was assigned as searcher and
evidence custodian. PO1 Jonas A. Rosales (PO1 Rosales), PO2 Charlie Jay
Ancheta (PO2 Ancheta), and PO3 Leonara Molina were designated as
arresting officer, recorder, and photographer, respectively. PO2 Lamberto
Lauros was responsible for coordinating with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) on the operation under the Control No. 1014-
0113. In addition, the following were assigned as back up: SPO3 William A.
Tecson, SPO1 Mariano B. Luzon (SPO1 Luzon), PO3 Darwin Andales, PO3
Emerito Paulinio, PO2 Helmar Diapo, PO2 Nelson Lodripas, PO1 Bombie
Bustillon, PO1 Ramon Butil, PO1 Ferdiand Ceballos, and PO1 Ronald Calabria.
At around 3:45 a.m., the team proceeded to the residence of petitioner
accompanied by witnesses Barangay Captain Hospicio G. Camilotes
(Barangay Captain Camilotes), Barangay Kagawad Blesilo C. Camello
(Barangay Kagawad Camello), Alexander M. Luzon (Luzon) as representative
from the media, and Gaspar M. Dangoy (Dangoy) as representative for the
Department of Justice (DOJ).
Upon arriving at the residence of petitioner, the team positioned
themselves at the front and back doors. They knocked, and identified
themselves as police officers with a search warrant. However, no one
answered the door and the officers had to forcibly enter through the back
door.
Inside, police officers found petitioner sitting in the living room awake.
Shortly thereafter, his mother, Adela Mascariñas (Adela), awakened by the
commotion, joined the group in the living room. SPO1 Luzon then read the
search warrant to petitioner. PO3 Nuera then conducted a body search on
petitioner in the presence of the witnesses, but yielded no evidence. PO3
Nuera searched the living room with no results. He then proceeded to
petitioner's room, along with the witnesses and petitioner himself. After
about 15 minutes of searching, PO3 Nuera observed a rolled tin foil on top of
the Orocan cabinet next to the bed. They opened the tin foil and found five
heat-sealed transparent sachets containing a white crystalline substance,
suspected to be shabu . Further search of the room yielded two lighters and
10 pieces of tin foil.
After the discovery of the said heat-sealed sachets and other seized
items, PO1 Rosales arrested petitioner, informing him of his rights. PO3
Nuera marked the heat-sealed sachets as "APM-1" to "APM-5" with the date
and his signature in the living room in front of petitioner, Adela, and the
witnesses. PO2 Ancheta inventoried the seized items in the same manner
while PO3 Molina photographed the proceedings.
The inventory was signed by PO2 Ancheta, PO3 Nuera, PO1 Rosales,
Barangay Captain Camilotes, Barangay Kagawad Camello, Luzon, Dangoy,
and Adela. Accused was then taken to the Loon Police Station for proper
disposition.
PO3 Nuera then made a return of service of the search warrant to the
issuing court. After a motion to withdraw the five marked heat-sealed
sachets was filed and granted, PO3 Nuera then took the same to the Bohol
Provincial Crime Laboratory for examination. At the crime laboratory, PO3
Nuera delivered the marked heat-sealed sachets together with a Laboratory
Examination Request, which were received by PO3 Andres N. Garcia (PO3
Garcia), the desk officer. PO3 Garcia then handed the marked heat-sealed
sachets to P/Insp. Jovani D. Abregana (P/Insp. Abregana), forensic chemist,
for examination.
As per Chemistry Report No. D-594-2014, P/Insp. Abregana determined
that the specimens were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu. After the examination, P/Insp. Abregana placed the specimens inside
another plastic bag, sealed the bag and deposited it with the laboratory's
evidence custodian.
At his arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty.
Ruling of the RTC
On 15 September 2017, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision, which
found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165. The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds accused
ALLAN MASCARIÑAS y PIZARRAS Alias "Onggoy" GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt for the offense of violation of Section 11 (3)
of Article II of R.A. 9165 or The Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002 n
for Possession of Dangerous Drugs and hereby imposes an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one
(1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as
maximum and a FINE of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P300,000.00) and to pay the cost.
Pursuant to Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) is hereby ordered to take custody
of the dangerous drugs for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. 4

Contrary to the contention of accused, the trial court did not find any
irregularity in the implementation of the search warrant. Further, it was
convinced that the rules under Section 21 of RA 9165, in relation to Article II,
Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165,
were substantially complied with. It gave weight to the testimony of the
police officers as it did not find any basis to disregard the legal presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duties. 5
Ruling of the CA
On 30 January 2020, the CA issued the assailed decision. The fallo of
the decision reads:
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the present appeal is
DISMISSED. The Decision dated September 15, 2017 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 4, Tagbilaran City, Bohol in Criminal Case No.
17102 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 6

In affirming the ruling of the trial court, the CA was convinced that the
prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized
drugs. According to the CA, there is no doubt that the shabu recovered
during the search was the same offered into evidence before the trial court.
The non-presentation of PO3 Garcia does not adversely affect the
prosecution's case. The claim of the petitioner that the drug specimen was
somehow interchanged or mingled while it was with the crime laboratory's
evidence custodian prior to its presentation before the trial court is purely
speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence. The CA stressed that law
enforcement officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance
of their duties. 7 The motion for reconsideration of petitioner was likewise
denied. 8
Undeterred, accused files the instant petition. He asserts that the
seized evidence is inadmissible as it was obtained through an unlawful
search and seizure. He argues that the police officers did not properly
implement the search warrant as they allegedly failed to give proper notice
prior to their entry to his residence. He also casts doubt as to the identity of
t h e corpus delicti of the crime charged and alleges gaps in the chain of
custody of the seized drugs. 9
Issue
Whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction of accused.
Ruling of the Court
The Petition is impressed with merit.
At the outset, it bears stressing that in drugs cases, the prosecution
cannot benefit from a presumption of regularity. Section 21 of RA 9165
articulates a specific statutory mandate that cannot be trumped by the
prosecution's self-assurance. 10 While not losing sight of the urgency of
addressing the drug menace, it is this Court's bounden duty to ensure
compliance with laws and uphold basic freedoms. 11
There was proper implementation of
the search warrant
Contrary to the claim of petitioner, We do not find any irregularity in
the implementation of the search warrant. Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court states:
Section 7. Â Right to break door or window to effect search.
— The Officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search
after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any
outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or
anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any
person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.
The rules on knock and announce principle were observed in this case.
When the police arrived at the house of accused, PO2 Rosales knocked the
door and informed that they were police officers armed with a search
warrant but the occupants refused to open the door so the police forcibly
opened the door and entered. Inside the house, SPO1 Luzon read the search
warrant to the accused in the presence of the witnesses. This is evident in
the testimonies of PO3 Nuera and PO2 Rosales, viz.:
a. Â PO3 Nuera:
Q: Â Upon arrival at the house of Allan Mascariñas, what happened
then?
A: Â Upon arrival at the house of Allan Mascariñas, we called Allan
Mascariñas, we informed him that we are Police Officers who
serve the search warrant, sir.
Q: Â Was he present at the time?
A: Â Yes, sir, but he did not open the door.
Q: Â What did you do when he did not open the door?
A: Â We forcibly opened the front door and the back door, sir.
Q: Â So, after you gained entrance into his house, what happened
next?
A: Â Upon entering the house in his living room, Allan Mascariñas
was there so we told him that we have a search warrant.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Â Aside from him were there other occupants that were present?
A: Â His mother.
Q: Â And then after telling him that you are armed with a search
warrant what did he say?
A: Â He did not say anything.
Q: Â What about his mother?
A: Â She was surprised, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Â At that moment that you gained entrance at the house of the
accused, where were these witnesses you said they joined you in
the search?
A: Â They followed us.
Q: Â Including the civilian witnesses?
A: Â Yes, sir.
Q: Â So, after informing the accused that you were armed with a
search warrant what happened next?
A: Â To make it proper our Chief Investigator PO1 Luzon read the
search warrant to Allan Mascariñas. 12
b. Â PO2 Rosales:
Q: Â In your affidavit, you stated that you were the one knocking the
door of the house of Allan Mascariñas and you said that after
informing that you were police officers, the occupants did not
open?
A: Â After introducing ourselves as police officers we informed them
that we have a search warrant. Because they did not open the
door, we forcibly entered the house. 13
Verily, petitioner failed to prove any irregularity in the implementation
of the search warrant. Nonetheless, as will be discussed at length below, his
acquittal is proper for failure of the prosecution to prove strict compliance
with Section 21 of RA 9165.
There were unexplained gaps in the
third and fourth links of the chain of
custody
The elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section
11 of RA 9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object
identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by
law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. In
cases of this nature, it is essential that the identity of the seized drug be
established with moral certainty. Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary
doubts on such identity, the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of
custody over it. The prosecution must be able to account for each link in the
chain of custody over the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to
its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 14
As a general rule, four links in the chain of custody of the confiscated
item must be established: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second,
the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth ,
the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the
forensic chemist to the Court. 15
In this case, the first and second links were duly established by the
prosecution. Immediately after the search, the recovered items were marked
by PO3 Nuera as "APM-1" to "APM-5" with the date and his signature. The
physical inventory and photograph of the seized items were made inside the
house and in the presence of the accused, Adela, the two elected officials,
and the DOJ and media representatives. The inventory was signed by the
same witnesses.
However, there were unexplained gaps in the succeeding links in the
chain of custody. According to the prosecution, PO3 Nuera turned over the
seized items to PO3 Garcia, the desk officer of the crime laboratory. It was
PO3 Garcia who handed the seized items to P/Insp. Abregana, forensic
chemist, for examination. However, PO3 Garcia was not presented as
witness to testify on the condition of the seized items when these were
delivered and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity. In People v.
Ismael, We ruled that non-presentation of the desk officer to whom the
contraband was turned over constitutes a break in the chain of custody.
Indeed, every person who takes possession of seized drugs must show how
it was handled and preserved while in his or her custody to prevent any
switching or replacement. 16
The need for PO3 Garcia's testimony is amplified by the fact that
several hours have lapsed from the time that PO3 Nuera delivered the seized
items to the crime laboratory to the time when these were examined. PO3
Nuera testified that he delivered the seized items to the crime laboratory at
around 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. 17 However, the Chemistry Report reflects that
it was received for examination at 11:21H. 18 There was no explanation
provided as to the gap of more than 3 hours. During this period, the integrity
of the seized items could have been compromised.
Further, while P/Insp. Abregana testified that he gave the seized items
to the evidence custodian of the crime laboratory after his examination, said
evidence custodian was not presented in court to testify on the condition of
the seized items and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity. His or her
identity was not revealed, nor did such person sign the chain of custody
document. In People v. Alon-Alon , We held that failure to present the
evidence custodian is a clear disregard of the mandate that every link in the
chain must testify, describing the condition of the seized item when it was
delivered, and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity. 19 Similarly, in
People v. Labadan , We found that the fourth link in the chain of custody was
broken when the identity of the evidence custodian was not revealed and his
or her name is not reflected in the chain of custody. Thus:
On the fourth link, after PCI Julian examined the sample taken from
accused-appellants to ensure it was indeed a prohibited drug, nary a
statement was made detailing what happened after the examination.
The stipulation stated that the specimen was turned over to the
evidence custodian; however, the identity of the custodian was not
revealed, nor did such person sign the chain of custody document.
Any other detail after the turnover to PCI Julian was sorely missing in
the document. Once more, the prosecution evidence gives rise to
more questions than answers: To whom did PCI Julian hand over
the specimen after examination? How was it handled by her?
How was it handled by the evidence custodian? No answers
were found to properly apprise the Court of the compliance
with the chain of custody rule. 20
Nevertheless, We acknowledge that strict compliance with the chain of
custody procedure may not always be possible. During such eventualities,
the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would
not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and
invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a
justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved. 21 In this case, however,
the prosecution failed to recognize the gaps in the chain of custody and offer
any explanation for the same.
Observance of chain of custody is
more crucial when the seized drugs
are miniscule in quantity
It bears stressing that the observance of the chain of custody is even
more crucial if the shabu involved is only miniscule, 22 such as in this case.
I n People v. Sagana , We declared that the 0.12 gram of shabu seized was
miniscule; hence, the need for exacting compliance with Section 21 of RA
9165. We explained that courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent
with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases
involving miniscule amounts of drugs for these can be readily planted and
tampered. 23
It must be emphasized that compliance with the chain of custody
procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded not merely as
a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law. This is because
the law has been crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address
potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may
be life imprisonment. 24
Therefore, the significant lapses committed, as well as their failure to
explain their non-compliance with the directives of the law, cast doubt on the
integrity of the corpus delicti. With these circumstances, this Court acquits
accused as his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is GRANTED
and the Decision dated 30 January 2020 and Resolution dated 23 June 2021
of the Court of Appeals Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR No. 03071 are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Petitioner ALLAN P. MASCARIÑAS is hereby ACQUITTED
for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He
is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being
lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued
immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the
Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The
said Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five
working days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.
SO ORDERED." Hernando, J., on wellness leave.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Division Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO

Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 15-43.

2. Id. at 95-104. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and
concurred in by Associate Justices Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga and Carlito B.
Calpatura of Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
3. Id. at 121-123. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and
concurred in by Associate Justices Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga and Bautista
G. Corpin, Jr. of Special Former Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu
City.

4. Id. at 73.

5. Id. at 68-71.

6. Id. at 104.

7. Id. at 101-103.

8. Id. at 123.

9. Id. at 23-36.

10. People v. Royol , G.R. No. 224297, 13 February 2019 citing People v. Que , G.R.
No. 212994, 31 January 2018.

11. People v. Royol, supra .

12. TSN, 23 September 2015, pp. 5-6.

13. TSN, 25 May 2016, p. 6.

14. Fernandez v. People , G.R. No. 254320, 05 July 2021.

15. People v. Gayoso , 808 Phil. 19, 31 (2017).

16. People v. Ismael , 2017, n 806 Phil. 21, 33, 35 (2017).

17. TSN, 23 September 2015, p. 25.

18. Records, p. 12.

19. People v. Alon-Alon, G.R. No. 237803, 27 November 2019.

20. People v. Labadan , G.R. No. 237769, 11 March 2019.

21. Fernandez v. People, supra.

22. People v. Alon-Alon, supra.

23. People v. Sagana , 815 Phil. 356, 377 (2017) citing People v. Casacop , 755 Phil.
265, 284 (2015).

24. Fernandez v. People, supra.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document. "The
Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002" should be "The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002".

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document.