THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 207992 August 11, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ AND ANTONIO MISAREZ Y ZARAGA, Accused-appellants.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of custody
of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. This is especially true when only a miniscule
amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the accused.

This resolves an appeal from a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs or for violation of
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002.

Accused-appellants Roberto Holgado y Dela Cruz (Holgado) and Antonio Misarez y Zaraga
(Misarez) were charged in an information dated January 19, 2007, as follows:

On or about January 17, 2007, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding with
(sic) one another, and not being lawfully authorized to sell any dangerous drug, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Philip Aure, one (1) piece of
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing five (5) centigrams (0.05 gram) of white crystalline
substance, which was found to (sic) positive to the test for methylamphetamine hyrdrocloride
(shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.

Contrary to law. 1

Holgado and Misarez were also charged with possession of dangerous drugs, and possession of
drug paraphernalia, but subsequently acquitted.

As alleged by the prosecution, inDecember 2006, the Pasig City Police received reports of illegal
drug activities of Holgado along C. Raymundo Street, Pasig City. After surveillance operations, a
2

search warrant was issued against Holgado. Acting on the search warrant, the Pasig City Chief of
Police instructed his officers to, if possible, first conduct a buy-bust operation before
actuallyenforcing the search warrant. 3

In the evening of January 17, 2007, police operatives went to No. 17, C. Raymundo Street for the
buy-bust operation. PO1 Philip Aure, acting as poseur-buyer and accompanied by the police
informant, approached Holgado who was then part of a drinking session with two (2) companions.
Holgado asked the informant if he was buying drugs while at the same time offering him a drink. The
informant accepted the drink and introduced PO1 Aure as a drug user. PO1 Aure thenhanded
Holgado two (2) marked one hundred peso bills. Holgado asked PO1 Aure and the informant to wait
as the drugs were with his "kumpare" who was then in the restroom. 4

Holgado called Misarez. After some time, co-accused Antonio Misarez stepped out of the
restroomand asked who was buying drugs. PO1 Aure and the informant answered, "Kami." Misarez
then handed a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance to PO1 Aure. PO1 Aure
examined the sachet’s contents and took out his cellphone. This was the pre-arranged signal to the
other police operatives that the sale of drugs had been consummated. 5

The police operatives then approached PO1 Aure. When PO1 Aure saw his companions
approaching, he seized Misarez’s hand, but the latter was able to escape and lock himself inside the
house. Holgado, too, was able to flee into the house and join Misarez. The police operatives
managed to break open the wooden door with a crowbar. By then, however, Holgado and Misarez
had managed to leave the house through a passageway in the ceiling leading to an adjoining house.
PO3 Rolando Abuyme and PO2 Arnulfo Dancel managed to get inside the adjoining house where
they apprehended Holgado and Misarez. 6
The search warrant was then enforced "in coordination with a barangay official and in the presence
of some media people." The search allegedly yielded several drugs and drug paraphernalia. These
7 8

items (i.e., other than the plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance supposedly sold to
PO1 Aure) were the subject of three (3) other cases. These other cases have since been dismissed. 9

As noted in the Regional Trial Court’s August 17, 2009 decision, PO3 Abuyme prepared an
inventory of the seized items. Specifically with respect to the plastic sachet which was the basis of
10

the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, PO1 Aure supposedly marked the plastic sachet
handed to him by Misarez with "RH-PA" at the site of the buy-bust operation.
11

Following their arrest, Holgado and Misarez were charged with violating Sections 5 (sale of
dangerous drugs), 11 (possession of dangerous drugs), and 12 (possession of drug
12 13

paraphernalia) of Republic Act No. 9165. The case for violating Section 5 was docketed as Criminal
14

Case No. 15338-D. The cases for violating Section 11 were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 15339-
D and 15341-D. The case for violating Section 12 was docketed as Criminal Case No. 15340-D. The
charge for violating Section 5 was in view of the plastic sachet containing a white crystalline
substance supposedly sold by Holgado to PO1 Aure. The charges for violations of Sections 11 and
12 were in view of the items supposedly seized in enforcing the search warrant.

During trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses PO1 Aure and the apprehending officers PO2
Roberto Castulo and PO3 Abuyme. The defense presented as its witnesses accused-appellants
Holgado and Misarez, as well as their neighbor, Carlos Marquing, and Holgado’s wife, Maribel
Villareal.
15

In their testimonies, accused-appellants claimed that no buy-bust operation was conducted. Instead,
the police operatives allegedly barged into Holgado’s house and arrested accused-appellants who
were then merely having a few drinks. While Holgado and Misarez were handcuffed, the police
operatives conducted a supposed search of Holgado’s house. They were then taken to the police
station. Defense witnesses Marquing and Villareal corroborated accused-appellants’ claims. 16

After trial, the Pasig City Regional Trial Court, Branch 154 found Holgado and Misarez guilty of
illegal saleof dangerous drugs (i.e., violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165). They were
acquitted of the charges pertaining to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 as the drugs supposedly
seized were not introduced in evidence. Holgado, the sole accused in Criminal Case No. 15340-D,
was also acquitted of the charges relating to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165 asthe
paraphernalia to which PO2 Castulo testified to in court were different from those indicated in the
inventory supposedly made when the search warrant was enforced. 17

Holgado and Misarez were sentencedto suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a penalty
of ₱1million. The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court’s decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered –

In Crim. Case No. 15338-D finding both the accused Roberto Holgado and Antonio Misarez GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (sale of dangerous
drug), and each of them is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. Each of them
is also ordered to pay a fine of One Million Pesos (₱1,000,000.00). In Crim. Cases Nos. 15339-D
and 15341-D for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 (possession of dangerous drug) against
accused Roberto Holgado and Antonio Misarez, they are hereby found NOT GUILTY of the said
offense for lack of evidence.

In Crim. Case No. 15340-D for violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165 (possession of drug
paraphernalia) against Roberto Holgado, judgment is hereby rendered finding the said accused NOT
GUILTY of the said offense charged against him on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia allegedly obtained from the persons of the accused
and subject of the Informations are hereby ordered delivered forthwith to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.

Considering the penalty imposed by the Court on the accused ROBERTO HOLGADO and
ANTONIO MISAREZ for violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (sale of dangerous drug), their
immediate commitment to the National Bilibid Prisons is hereby ordered.
SO ORDERED. (Underscoring in the original)
18

In the decision dated February 18, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s
19

decision convicting Holgado and Misarez.

On March 4, 2013, Holgado and Misarez filed their notice of appeal. 20

In the resolution dated September 11, 2013, this court noted the records forwarded by the Court of
Appeals and informed the parties that they may file their supplemental briefs. 21

On November 6, 2013, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a manifestation and motion, on behalf
ofthe People of the Philippines, noting that it would no longer file a supplemental brief.22

On December 27, 2013, Holgado and Misarez filed their joint supplemental brief where they
23

assailed the supposed lack of compliance with the requirements set by the chain of custody of
seized drugs and drug paraphernalia as provided by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

For resolution is the issue of whether Holgado’s and Misarez’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for
violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 was established. Subsumed in the resolution of this
issue is the question of whether the prosecution was able to establish compliance with the requisites
of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

The elements that must be established to sustain convictions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs are
settled. In People v. Morales, this court stated:
24

In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be
established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.25

On corpus delicti, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640,
provides for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or
drug paraphernalia. Specifically with respect to custody before the filing of a criminal case, Section
21, as amended, provides: SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition ofConfiscated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/orLaboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall
take charge and havecustody 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 teamhaving initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of
the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the
media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof:Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the
place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures
and custody over said items.

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant
sources ofdangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the
PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the
forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject
item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of
 testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally
issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic
laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately
uponcompletion of the said examination and certification[.] (Emphasis supplied)

As this court declared in People v. Morales, "failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II
of RA 9165 implie[s] a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution toestablish the identity of
the corpus delicti." It "produce[s] doubts as tothe origins ofthe [seized paraphernalia]."
26 27

The significance of ensuring the integrity of drugs and drug paraphernalia in prosecutions under
Republic Act No. 9165 is discussed in People v. Belocura: 28

Worse, the Prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug that constituted the
corpus delicti itself. The omission naturally raises grave doubt about any search being actually
conducted and warrants the suspicion that the prohibited drugs were planted evidence.

In every criminal prosecution for possession of illegal drugs, the Prosecution must account for the
custody of the incriminating evidence from the moment of seizure and confiscation until the moment
it is offered in evidence. That account goes to the weight of evidence. It is not enough that the
evidence offered has probative value on the issues, for the evidence must also be sufficiently
connectedto and tied with the facts in issue. The evidence is not relevant merely because it is
available but that it has an actual connection with the transaction involved and with the parties
thereto. This is the reason why authentication and laying a foundation for the introduction of
evidence are important. (Emphasis supplied)
29

In Malilin v. People, this court explained that the exactitude required by Section 21 goes into the
30

very nature of narcotics as the subject of prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165:

Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake withrespect to an exhibit is greatest when the
exhibit issmall and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to
substances familiar to people in their daily lives. Graham vs. Statepositively 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
havebeen 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 another or been contaminated or tampered with. (Emphasis
31

supplied)

Compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21, therefore, ensures the
integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drugparaphernalia in four (4)
respects: first, the nature of the substances or items seized; second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of the
substances or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident
allegedly causing their seizure; and fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the
person/s alleged to have been in possession of or peddling them. Compliance with this requirement
forecloses opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any manner.

By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti, non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a failure to
establish an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that this non-
compliance suffices as a ground for acquittal. As this court stated in People v. Lorenzo: 32

In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there
is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug.The identity of the prohibited drug must be
established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are
present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same
substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude
as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. (Emphasis supplied)
33

The prosecution’s sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized drugs and drug
paraphernaliawill not secure a conviction. Not even the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duties will suffice. In fact, whatever presumption there is as to the regularity of the manner
by which officers took and maintained custody of the seized items is "negated." Republic Act No.
34

9165 requires compliance with Section 21.

Even the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not actuallycomply with the
requirements of Section 21 does not suffice. In People v. Magat, for instance, this court had
35

occasion to emphasize the inadequacy of merely marking the items supposedly seized: "Marking of
the seized drugs alone by the law enforcers is not enough to comply with the clear and unequivocal
procedures prescribed in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165." 36

The exactitude which the state requires in handling seized narcotics and drug paraphernalia is
bolstered by the amendments made to Section 21 by Republic Act No. 10640. Section 21(1), as
amended, now includes the following proviso, thereby making it even more stringent than as
originally worded:

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:

In People v. Nandi, this court explained that four (4) links "should be established in the chain of
37

custody of the confiscated item: 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 officerto the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
officer ofthe 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." 38

In Nandi, where the prosecution failed to show how the seized items were handled following the
actual seizure and, thereafter, turned over for examination, this court held thatthe accused must be
acquitted:

After a closer look, the Court finds that the linkages in the chain of custody of the subject item were
not clearly established. As can be gleaned from his forequoted testimony, PO1 Collado failed to
1âwphi1

provide informative details on how the subject shabu was handled immediately after the seizure. He
just claimed that the item was handed to him by the accused in the course of the transaction and,
thereafter, hehanded it to the investigator.

There is no evidence either on how the item was stored, preserved, labeled, and recorded. PO1
Collado could not even providethe court with the name of the investigator. He admitted that he was
not present when it was delivered to the crime laboratory. It was Forensic Chemist Bernardino M.
Banac, Jr. who identified the person who delivered the specimen to the crime laboratory.
Hedisclosed that he received the specimen from one PO1 Cuadra, who was not even a member of
the buybust team. Per their record, PO1 Cuadra delivered the letter-request with the attached seized
item to the CPD Crime Laboratory Office where a certain PO2 Semacio recorded it and turned it
over to the Chemistry Section.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the considered view that chain of custody of the illicit drug
seized was compromised. Hence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot
be applied in this case.

Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the
obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance
of duties cannot be made in this case. A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or
duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption applies when nothing
in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty
required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of
the flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

With the chain of custody in serious question, the Court cannot gloss over the argument of the
accused regarding the weight of the seized drug. The standard procedure is that after the
confiscation of the dangerous substance, it is brought to the crime laboratory for a series of tests.
The result thereof becomes oneof the bases of the charge to be filed. (Citations omitted)
39

In this case, the defense points out that all that the prosecution claimed, with respect to the handling
of the sachetsupposedly handed by Misarez to PO1 Aure, was that PO1 Aure supposedly marked it
"RH-PA" at the scene of the buy-bust operation. 40

While the buy-bust operation team allegedly conducted an inventory of the seized items, it is unclear
if this inventory was limited to those seized pursuant to the enforcement of the search warrant (i.e.,
after the conduct of the buy-bust operation) or was inclusive of whatever items seized during the
buy-bust operation. In any case, this inventory was discredited as Holgado was acquitted by the
Regional Trial Court of the charge of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia because the inventory
was found to be unreliable visa-vis the testimony of PO2 Castulo. The paraphernaliato which PO2
Castulo testified to in court were different from those indicated in the inventory supposedly made
when the search warrant was enforced.

There have been claims to the effect that the search warrant was enforced "in coordination with a
barangay official and in the presence of some media people." However, this "barangay official" and
41

these "media people" have neither been identified nor presented as witnesses. In any case, even if it
were to be granted that these individuals took part in the events that transpired in the evening of
January 17, 2007, their participation was alleged to have been only with respect to the enforcement
of the search warrant. It did not extend to the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the
seized items arising from the buy-bust operation, as required by Section 21. For that matter, it was
not even shown that photographs of the sachet marked as "RH-PA" were taken. Per his own
testimony, PO1 Aure himself doubtedif any photograph was taken. 42

The defense also points out that "PO1 Aure . . . failed to disclose who, in particular, held the sachet
of shabu from the crime scene (after it was marked) up to the police station, and finally to the crime
laboratory for the requisite chemical examination." It added that "nothing on (sic) the records
43

showed who, in particular, submitted/brought the specimen to the crime laboratory for examination." 44

In People v. Gatlabayan and People v. Sitco, this court considered as fatal to the prosecution’s
45 46

case the lack of evidence on the identity of the person who submitted the specimen for examination
to the PNP Crime Laboratory and/or the forensic chemist. In Sitco, this court characterized the lack
of evidence on this matter as "glaring gaps or missing links in the chain of custody of evidence,
raising doubt asto the identity of the seized items and necessarily their evidentiary value." This
47

court also underscored that "[t]his broken chain of custody is especially significant given that what
are involved are fungible items that may beeasily altered or tampered with." 48

In sum, the integrity of three (3) ofthe four (4) links enumerated in People v. Nandi (i.e., seizure and
49

marking, turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, and turnover by the
investigating officer to the forensic chemist) has been cast in doubt. As in Nandi, this doubt must be
resolved in favor of accused-appellants.

It is true that Section 21(1), as amended, now includes a proviso to the effect that "noncompliance of
(sic) these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void
and invalid such seizures and custody over said items." However, the prosecution has not shown
that when the buy-bust operation was allegedly conducted on January 17, 2007 and the sachet was
supposedly seized and marked, there were "justifiable grounds" for dispensing with compliance with
Section 21. Rather, it merely insisted on its self-serving assertion that the integrity of the seized
sachet has nevertheless been, supposedly, preserved. The omission became more glaring
considering that the prosecution asserted that the events of January 17, 2007 entailed a carefully
planned operation, engendered by reports of drug-related activities along C. Raymundo Street. This
planning even led to the application for and issuance of a search warrant.

Apart from the officers’ glaring non-compliance with Section 21, two (2) circumstances are worth
underscoringin this case. First, the shabu supposedly seized amounted to five (5) centigrams (0.05
gram). This quantity is so miniscule it amounts to only about 2.5% of the weight of a five-centavo
coin (1.9 grams) or a one-centavo coin (2.0 grams). Second, Holgado and Misarez were acquitted
by the Regional Trial Court of all other charges (i.e., for possession of dangerous drugs and for
possession of drug paraphernalia).

While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this
circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In Malilin v.
People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss ormistake with respect to an exhibit is
50

greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible innature and
similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives."
51

Moreover, the Regional Trial Court’s observations which led to accused-appellants’ acquittal for
violations of Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165 should have warned the Regional Trial
Court and the Court of Appeals that something was amiss.

The events of January 17, 2007 should be taken and appreciated as a whole even as they gave rise
to four (4) distinct criminal cases which were separately docketed. The reasons for acquitting
accused-appellants for the charges of violating Sections 11 and 12 (i.e., the prosecution’s complete
failure to introduce in evidence the drugs seized and the testifying police operative’s own failure to
properly account for the paraphernalia he himself took part in seizing) seriously cast doubt, not only
52

on accused-appellants’ own guilt, but more so on the soundness and reliability of the measures
taken and procedures followed by the police operatives. These circumstances cast a heavy shadow
on the integrity of the operation and the police operatives themselves.

Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of
Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicatedand barefaced
1âwphi1

narrative must be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with
the requirement ofproof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts
of drugs. These can be readily planted and tampered. Also, doubt normally follows in cases where
an accused has been discharged from other simultaneous offenses due to mishandling of evidence.
Had the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals been so judicious in this case, a speedier
resolution would have been handed to Holgado and Misarez whose guilt beyond reasonable doubt
was not established.

It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165
involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the
proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for
miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying
fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should
realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and
true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial
resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful
custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. Itmight in fact be distracting our
law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand
ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated February 18, 2013 of the Court of Appeals
inCA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04635 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Roberto Holgado
y Dela Cruz and Antonio Misarez y Zaraga are hereby ACQUITTEDfor failure of the prosecution to
prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from
detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City,
for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this
court within five (5) days from receipt of this decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be
furnished to the Director General of Philippine National Police and the Director General of Philippine
Drugs Enforcement Agency for their information.

The Regional Trial Court is directed to tum over the seized sachet of methamphetamine
hydrochloride to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.*

Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the Court's Division.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes

* Designated as Acting Member in view of the vacancy in the Third Division per Special
Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014.

1
Rollo, pp. 3–4.

2
CA rollo, p. 27.

3
Id. at 28.

4
Id. at 28–29.

5
Id. at 29.

6
CA rollo, pp. 29–30 and rollo, p. 5.

7
CA rollo, p. 30.

8
Id. at 29–30.

9
Rollo, pp. 2–3.

10
CA rollo, p. 30.
11
Rollo, p. 5 and CA rollo, p. 158.

12
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. -
The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any
and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as
a broker in any of such transactions.

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(₱100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) shall be imposed
upon any person, who,unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such
transactions.

If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation,delivery, distribution or transportation

of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires
within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed in every case.

For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners,
couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the
dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical trade,the
maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.

If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should

a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in
any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victimthereof, the
maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.

The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any
person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any ofthe illegal activities
prescribed in this Section.

The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of
imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000.00)
to Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.

13
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death
and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless ofthe degree of purity
thereof:

(1) 10 grams or more of opium;

(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;

(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;

(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;

(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";

(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;

(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and

 (8)10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy",
paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic
acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and those
similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without
having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Board in
accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less thanthe foregoing quantities, the penalties
shall be graduated as follows:

(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos
(₱400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00), if the quantity
of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but
less than fifty (50) grams;

(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment
and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000.00) to Five
hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs
are five (5) grams or more but less than ten

(10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride,

marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or
"ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value
or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three
hundred (300) grams or more but less than five (hundred) 500) grams of
marijuana; and(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos
(₱300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000.00), if the
quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium,
morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other
dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA,
LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their
derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed
is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300)
grams of marijuana.

14
Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1)
day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (₱10,000.00) to Fifty
thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by
law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and
other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of
medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry such equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board
shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.

The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit
or intended for any of the purposes enumeratedin the preceding paragraph shall be
prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to
himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed
to have violated Section 15 of this Act.

15
Rollo, p. 4.

16
CA rollo, pp. 32-33.

17
Id. at 33-38.
18
Id. at 37–38.

19
Rollo, pp. 2–10.

20
Id. at 12.

21
Rollo, p. 17.

22
Id. at 21-22.

23
Id. at 28-37.

24
G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010, 616 SCRA 223 [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].

Id. at 235, citing People v. Darisan, 597 Phil. 479, 485 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First Division]
25

and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883 (2009) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].

People v. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010, 616 SCRA 223, 236 [Per J. Del
26

Castillo, Second Division].

People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156, 170 (2001) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division], as cited in
27

People v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750, 758 [Per J. Tinga,
Second Division].

28
G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 318 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

29
Id. at 337–338.

30
576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

31
Id. at 588–589.

32
G.R. No. 184760, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 389 [Per J. Perez, Second Division].

33
Id. at 401.

People v. Navarrete, G.R. No. 185211, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 609, 618 [Per J. Carpio-
34

Morales, Third Division]. See also People v. Ulat, G.R. No. 180504, October 5, 2011, 650
SCRA 607 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].

35
588 Phil. 395 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

36
Id. at 97.

37
G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 123 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

Id. at 133, citing People v. Zaida Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA
38

295 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

39
Id. at 133–134.

40
Rollo, pp. 31–32; supplemental brief, pp. 4–5.

41
CA rollo, p. 30.

42
Rollo, p. 29; supplemental brief, p. 2.

43
Id. at 31; supplemental brief, p. 5.

44
Id.
45
G.R. No. 186467, July 13, 2011, 653 SCRA 803 [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].

46
G.R. No. 178202, May 14, 2010, 620 SCRA 561 [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].

47
Id. at 576–577.

48
Id. at 577.

G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 123 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division], citing
49

People v. Zaida Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295 [Per J. Brion,
Second Division].

50
576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

51
Id. at 633.

52
CA rollo, pp. 33-38.