Malillin vs. People

The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by itself overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence; a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, including an unbroken chain of custody where the substance is not readily identifiable.

Junie Malillin y Lopez stood charged as the accused in a criminal case for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which penalizes unauthorized possession of dangerous drugs. The People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, was the respondent. The offense concerns methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, and the dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense.

On 4 February 2003, by virtue of a search warrant issued by the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon City, Branch 52, a team of five police officers raided the residence of petitioner Junie Malillin y Lopez in Barangay Tugos, Sorsogon City. The team was headed by P/Insp. Catalino Bolanos, with PO3 Roberto Esternon, SPO1 Pedro Docot, SPO1 Danilo Lasala, and SPO2 Romeo Gallinera as members. The search was conducted in the presence of barangay kagawad Delfin Licup, petitioner himself, his wife Sheila, and his mother Norma. It allegedly yielded two plastic sachets of shabu and five empty plastic sachets containing residual morsels of the substance. Petitioner was accordingly charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The information alleged that on or about 4 February 2003, at about 8:45 in the morning in Barangay Tugos, Sorsogon City, he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had in his possession, custody, and control two plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride with an aggregate weight of 0.0743 gram, and four empty sachets containing shabu residue, without authority. He entered a negative plea.

The prosecution presented Bolanos, Arroyo, and Esternon as witnesses. Bolanos, the leader of the raiding team, testified that he and his men were allowed entry into the house after petitioner was shown the search warrant; that upon entering, he ordered Esternon and barangay kagawad Licup to conduct the search; that the rest of the police team positioned themselves outside the house to prevent anyone from fleeing; and that he observed the search from about a meter away. According to Bolanos, the search inside petitioner's bedroom yielded five empty plastic sachets with suspected shabu residue contained in a denim bag kept in one of the cabinets, and two plastic sachets containing shabu which fell off from one of the pillows searched by Esternon, a discovery made in petitioner's presence. On cross-examination, Bolanos admitted that during the search he was explaining its progress to petitioner's mother, Norma, but that his eyes were fixed on the search being conducted by Esternon.

Esternon testified that the denim bag containing the empty plastic sachets was found behind the door of the bedroom and not inside the cabinet; that he then found the two filled sachets under a pillow on the bed and forthwith called Gallinera to have the items recorded and marked. On cross-examination, he admitted that he alone conducted the search because Bolanos was standing behind him in the living room portion of the house, and that petitioner handed to him the things to be searched, including the pillow in which the two sachets of shabu were kept. He also stated that he brought the seized items to the Balogo Police Station for a "true inventory," then to the trial court, and thereafter to the laboratory. Supt. Lorlie Arroyo, the forensic chemist who examined the seized items, revealed that the two filled sachets were positive for shabu and that of the five empty sachets, four were positive for containing residue of the same substance. She further admitted that all seven sachets were delivered to the laboratory by Esternon in the afternoon of the same day that the warrant was executed, except that it was not she but a certain Mrs. Ofelia Garcia who received the items from Esternon at the laboratory.

The evidence for the defense focused on the irregularity of the search and seizure conducted by the police operatives. Petitioner testified that Esternon began the search of the bedroom with Licup and petitioner himself inside. The search was momentarily interrupted when one of the police officers declared to Bolanos that petitioner's wife, Sheila, was tucking something inside her underwear. A lady officer arrived to conduct the search of Sheila's body inside the same bedroom. At that point, everyone except Esternon was asked to step out of the room, so it was in his presence that Sheila was searched by the lady officer. Petitioner was then asked by a police officer to buy cigarettes at a nearby store, and when he returned from the errand, he was told that nothing was found on Sheila's body. Sheila was ordered to transfer to the other bedroom together with her children. Petitioner asserted that on his return from the errand, he was summoned by Esternon to the bedroom and, once inside, the officer closed the door and asked him to lift the mattress on the bed. As he was doing as told, Esternon stopped him and ordered him to lift the portion of the headboard. In that instant, Esternon showed him a sachet of shabu which, according to Esternon, came from a pillow on the bed. Petitioner's account was corroborated in its material respects by Norma, barangay kagawad Licup, and Sheila. Norma and Sheila positively declared that petitioner was not in the house for the entire duration of the search because at one point he was sent by Esternon to the store to buy cigarettes while Sheila was being searched by the lady officer. Licup, for his part, recounted that after the five empty sachets were found, he went out of the bedroom and into the living room, and after about three minutes, Esternon, who was left inside the bedroom, exclaimed that he had just found two filled sachets.

The trial court found that shabu was found in petitioner's house and treated that fact as prima facie evidence of animus possidendi sufficient to convict him, inasmuch as things which a person possesses or over which he exercises acts of ownership are presumptively owned by him. It also noted petitioner's failure to ascribe ill motives to the police officers to fabricate charges against him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the prison sentence.

• Irregularities in the Search: Petitioner called attention to certain irregularities in the manner by which the search of his house was conducted.
• Frame-Up: Petitioner claimed that he was framed up by Esternon.
• Absence During Discovery: Petitioner asserted that he was sent out of his house to buy cigarettes at a nearby store and was not present when the two filled sachets were allegedly discovered; he testified that upon returning, Esternon asked him to lift the mattress and headboard and then showed him a sachet of shabu.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Respondent argued that the prosecution evidence sufficed for petitioner's conviction.
• Presumption of Regularity: Respondent maintained that the raiding team regularly performed its duties and that, absent proof of improper motive, the presumption of regularity should prevail.
• Weakness of Defense: Respondent countered that petitioner's bare denial cannot defeat the positive assertions of the prosecution and does not suffice to overcome the prima facie existence of animus possidendi; it also described petitioner's claim of frame-up as incredulous.

• Chain of Custody and Identity of the Corpus Delicti: Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, including the chain of custody, as the corpus delicti of illegal possession.
• Presumption of Regularity versus Presumption of Innocence: Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties can overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence and sustain a conviction.
• Post-Seizure Procedure: Whether the police complied with Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 and Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court in the custody and delivery of the seized items.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

• Chain of Custody and Identity of the Corpus Delicti: No. The prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs because it did not present Gallinera and Garcia, key links in the chain of custody, or explain their absence.
• Presumption of Regularity versus Presumption of Innocence: No. The presumption of regularity is a disputable presumption that cannot by itself overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence; it cannot prevail over proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Post-Seizure Procedure: No. The police deviated from Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 and Rule 126, Section 12, by not conducting the inventory and photograph at the place of search and by not delivering the seized items to court, without acceptable justification.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: No. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal on reasonable doubt was proper.

• Chain of Custody and Identity of the Corpus Delicti: In prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs, the elemental act of possession must be established with moral certainty, and the dangerous drug itself is the corpus delicti; its identity must be established beyond doubt. The chain of custody rule requires testimony about every link from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, including how and from whom each person received it, where it was, what happened to it, its condition, and the precautions taken. An unbroken chain is indispensable when the item is not distinctive or readily identifiable, or susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination, substitution, or exchange. Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable and require a more stringent standard. Here, only Esternon and Arroyo testified to identity. Gallinera, who recorded and marked the seized items, and Garcia, who received the items at the laboratory from Esternon, were not presented, and no sufficient explanation was offered. The prosecution thus failed to rule out substitution and did not provide a reasonable guaranty of integrity, for both the two filled sachets and the five empty sachets.

• Presumption of Regularity versus Presumption of Innocence: The trial court and the Court of Appeals relied on the presumption of regularity, but the record disclosed irregularities. Petitioner, corroborated by his wife, testified that he was sent out to buy cigarettes before the two filled sachets were discovered, even though Bolanos posted officers to prevent him from fleeing; thus he did not witness the search during the crucial interlude. Esternon claimed petitioner handed him the pillow from which the sachets allegedly fell, contrary to ordinary human behavior if drugs were concealed therein. The body search of Sheila diverted attention from Esternon's search, and Esternon remained in the bedroom while Sheila was searched by a lady officer. Esternon also brought the seized items to the police station for a "true inventory" instead of doing it at the place of search, and failed to deliver the items to court. These circumstances contradicted the claim of regularity. The presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

• Post-Seizure Procedure: Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 mandates that the officer acquiring initial custody of drugs under a search warrant conduct photographing and physical inventory at the place where the warrant was served. Esternon deviated by bringing the seized items to the police station for a "true inventory," and the prosecution offered no acceptable justification. The Court noted that there was no reason why a true inventory could not be made in petitioner's house, since the team was able to record and mark the items and prepare a seizure receipt there. The final proviso excusing non-compliance under justifiable grounds did not benefit the prosecution. Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court requires the officer to forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant, with a true inventory duly verified under oath. Esternon's failure to deliver the items to court departed from this directive. People vs. Go characterized the requirement as mandatory to preclude substitution or tampering; People vs. Del Castillo held that court approval is necessary before police may retain seized property; People vs. Gesmundo held that mere tolerance of a contrary practice does not make it right.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The burden of proving guilt lies on the prosecution, which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. The lack of conclusive identification of the drugs, coupled with irregular custody, weighed against conviction. The presumption of innocence prevails unless overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In dubio pro reo; when moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt is a matter of right.

• Presumption of Regularity Cannot Overcome Presumption of Innocence — The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions is merely a disputable presumption; it cannot by itself overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. It cannot be regarded as binding truth when challenged by contrary evidence, and it cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence if the latter is not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court applied this by rejecting the lower courts' blind reliance on regularity in light of the irregularities in the search and custody.
• Chain of Custody Rule — As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It includes testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, such that every person who touched the exhibit describes how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and delivered to the next link, and the precautions taken to ensure no change in condition and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to possess it. An unbroken chain becomes indispensable when the item is not distinctive or readily identifiable, when its condition at testing or trial is critical, when a witness failed to observe its uniqueness, or when it is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination, substitution, or exchange. The level of strictness depends on susceptibility to fungibility, alteration, or tampering. The Court applied this to narcotics, which are not readily identifiable, and found the prosecution's chain incomplete.
• Corpus Delicti in Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs — The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, and its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established beyond doubt, and the fact that the substance illegally possessed is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must be established with the same unwavering exactitude required for guilt. The Court applied this by holding that the prosecution failed to conclusively identify the seized drugs.
• Post-Seizure Custody and Delivery Requirements — Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 requires the apprehending officer/team with initial custody to physically inventory and photograph the drugs immediately after seizure at the place where the search warrant is served, or at the nearest police station or office in case of warrantless seizures, with non-compliance excused only under justifiable grounds if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court requires the officer to forthwith deliver the seized property to the judge who issued the warrant with a true inventory duly verified under oath. The Court applied these provisions by finding deviations without acceptable justification.
• In Dubio Pro Reo — When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right. The Court applied this principle in acquitting petitioner after finding the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• "The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by its lonesome overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and nothing else can eclipse the hypothesis of guiltlessness." — This passage states the core ratio: the presumption of regularity is subordinate to the constitutional presumption of innocence and cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• "The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction." — This defines the corpus delicti requirement in illegal possession cases and explains why the identity of the seized drug must be established beyond doubt.
• "While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness." — This is the Court's canonical formulation of when strict chain-of-custody proof is required, particularly for fungible and readily alterable substances like narcotics.
• "When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right." — This expresses the in dubio pro reo principle applied by the Court in ordering petitioner's acquittal.

• People vs. Go, G.R. No. 144639, 12 September 2003, 411 SCRA 81 — Cited to characterize the requirement of delivering seized items to court as mandatory in order to preclude substitution or tampering.
• People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 153254, 20 September 2004, 439 SCRA 601 — Cited for the rule that approval by the court which issued the search warrant is necessary before police officers may retain seized property; without it, they have no authority to retain possession or deliver the same to another agency.
• People vs. Gesmundo, G.R. No. 89373, 9 March 1993, 219 SCRA 743 — Cited for the principle that mere tolerance by the trial court of a contrary practice does not make the practice right because it violates mandatory requirements of the law.
• People vs. Ambrosio, G.R. No. 135378, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 312 — Cited for the rule that the presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence.
• People vs. Simbahon, G.R. No. 132371, 9 April 2003, 401 SCRA 94 — Cited for the requirement that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.
• Graham vs. State, 255 N.E.2d 652 — Cited to acknowledge the danger of tampering with fungible substances and to explain that a substance later analyzed as heroin was excluded where police officers who handled it did not testify on its condition and whereabouts.
• People vs. Laxa, G.R. No. 138501, 20 July 2001, 361 SCRA 622 — Cited for the burden on the prosecution and the presumption of innocence, and for the requirement of proving the corpus delicti.
• People vs. Pedronan, G.R. No. 148668, 17 June 2003, 404 SCRA 183 — Cited for the exception to the rule that trial court findings of fact are entitled to great weight, where facts of weight and substance were overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied.

• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Penalizes unauthorized possession of dangerous drugs and sets graduated penalties. The petitioner was charged under this provision for possessing two plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride with an aggregate weight of 0.0743 gram and four empty sachets containing shabu residue. The Court ultimately acquitted him, so no penalty was imposed.
• Section 21, Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 — Requires the apprehending officer/team with initial custody of drugs to physically inventory and photograph the same immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused or his representative/counsel, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official, at the place where the search warrant is served, or at the nearest police station or office in case of warrantless seizures; non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not invalidate the seizure if integrity and evidentiary value are preserved. The Court found Esternon deviated by bringing the items to the police station for a "true inventory" without acceptable justification.
• Rule 126, Section 12, Rules of Court — Requires the officer seizing property under a search warrant to forthwith deliver it to the judge who issued the warrant, with a true inventory duly verified under oath. The Court found Esternon's failure to deliver the seized items to court was a departure from this directive.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The petitioner invoked this rule in filing the Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.
• Constitutional presumption of innocence (as referenced in the decision) — The decision refers to the constitutional presumption of innocence, which prevails unless overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt; it cannot be overcome by the presumption of regularity in official duties.

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr., and Brion, JJ., concur.