People of the Philippines vs. Amalia Soriano y Realingo a.k.a. "Amy"

The failure to use an evidence bag or appropriate container for seized drug evidence is not automatically fatal to a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved through an unbroken chain of custody. What matters is not so much the type or designation of the container used to store the drug evidence but the manner in which said evidence was handled and transferred from one officer to another in the chain of custody, taking into account the type and amount of drugs involved and whether the circumstances warrant a different type of handling or container.

Amalia Soriano y Realingo was charged in the Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Norte with violations of Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in Criminal Case Nos. 16274 and 16273, respectively. The charges arose from a search of her house pursuant to Search Warrant No. D-2014-15 issued by Judge Arniel A. Dating on June 30, 2014. The applicable legal framework includes Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, which establishes the chain of custody rule for seized drugs, and various PNP manuals and PDEA guidelines that have historically mandated or addressed the use of evidence bags for drug evidence.

On June 30, 2014, Judge Arniel A. Dating issued Search Warrant No. D-2014-15 authorizing the search and seizure of an undetermined quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride in the house of accused-appellant Amalia Soriano y Realingo at Purok 1, Barangay Mantagbac (IV), Municipality of Daet, Province of Camarines Norte. The following day, July 1, 2014, at around 6:10 a.m., elements of the Intel Operatives of Daet Municipal Police Station, composed of Police Officer 1 Jesus Togores as the designated searcher, PO1 Marian Guinto as the arresting officer, and PO2 Ronald Gutierrez as the photographer, went to Soriano's house armed with the search warrant.

During the search, PO1 Togores found a matchbox containing three sachets with white crystalline substance on top of the bed. He then came upon a Zest-O box containing drug paraphernalia, such as scissors, aluminum foil, plastic sachets, and a tooter. On top of the table near the door of the bedroom, he recovered a multi-colored pouch containing five sachets with white crystalline substance, a red pouch containing eight sachets with white crystalline substance, and a gold wallet box containing four sachets with white crystalline substance. All in all, the search yielded 20 plastic sachets of suspected shabu. After the search, PO1 Togores laid all the confiscated items on the floor, marked and inventoried the seized items in the presence of Soriano, Department of Justice representative Dennis Lladoc, media representative Ricky Pera, and Barangay Kagawad Edwin Agura. The seized items remained in the custody of PO1 Togores throughout.

At the police station, the police operatives entered the operation in the police blotter and prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination. PO1 Togores then brought the seized items to the RTC of Daet, Camarines Norte to make the required return of the search warrant. Subsequently, PO1 Togores personally brought the letter request for laboratory examination and the seized specimens to the Camarines Norte Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, where they were received by PCI Gorospe. PCI Gorospe conducted qualitative and quantitative examinations on the specimens, which yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and she issued Chemistry Report No. D-67-14. The total net weight of the seized drugs was 16.9618 grams.

Soriano vehemently denied the accusations against her. She testified that on July 1, 2014, at around 5:00 a.m., she was in the comfort room when her grandchild called and informed her that several men entered their house. She went out to check and saw four men who introduced themselves as police officers. They told her to remain standing in front of the comfort room while the men searched their house. Before 6:00 a.m., PO1 Togores arrived and showed the search warrant to her. Thereafter, PO1 Togores searched her house but found nothing. Despite this fact, she was brought to the provincial hospital for medical examination, and then to the police station where she was detained.

• Failure to Establish Corpus Delicti: Accused-appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of the crime due to the inadequate and inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as regards the chain of custody, particularly that PO1 Togores' testimony was bereft of details on how the seized items were safeguarded, with nothing said on whether they were placed in a secured container or evidence bag.
• Non-Compliance with Rule 126, Section 12: Accused-appellant posited that the non-admission into evidence of the RTC's Order dated July 1, 2014 spells non-compliance with Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court, which is fatal to the establishment of the corpus delicti.

• Unbroken Chain of Custody: The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, contended that PO1 Togores testified that nobody but him touched the drug items from the time he recovered them until they reached the crime laboratory.
• Propriety of the Return of Search Warrant: The People argued that it was proper for Police/Inspector Villaluz to sign the Return of Search Warrant since he was the one who applied for the issuance of the search warrant and it was he who submitted the return, which did not indicate that he was in custody of the drug items.
• No Blame for the Order's Flaws: The prosecution should not be blamed for any factual flaw in the Order dated July 1, 2014 since it had no hand in the preparation thereof.

• Use of Evidence Bag: Whether the failure to use an evidence bag or appropriate container for seized drug evidence is fatal to a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the RTC correctly imposed an indeterminate penalty of 30 years to life imprisonment for the illegal possession of 16.9618 grams of shabu.

• Use of Evidence Bag: No. The failure to use an evidence bag is not automatically fatal since it is not required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and the chain of custody rule, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.
• Proper Penalty: No. The RTC erroneously imposed an indeterminate penalty; since the quantity of shabu involved is 16.9618 grams, which is 10 grams or more but less than 50 grams, the penalty under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 is life imprisonment and a fine ranging from PHP 400,000.00 to PHP 500,000.00.

• Use of Evidence Bag: The Court traced the history of the use of the evidence bag in drugs cases, noting that prior to Republic Act No. 9165, the 1999 PNP Manual mandated the use of an evidence bag or envelope to store seized drug items, and that the 2010 PNP Manual instructed the seizing officer to secure and preserve evidence in a suitable evidence bag or appropriate container. However, the 2014 Revised PNP Manual dispensed with the term "evidence bag" for drug evidence and merely stated that all illegal drugs shall be properly marked, weighed, sealed, packed, and labeled. The Court distinguished this case from Tumabini vs. People, People vs. Alvarado, and Ramos vs. People, where the absence of an evidence bag was fatal, because here the 20 heat-sealed plastic sachets of shabu were already contained in four containers — a matchbox, a red pouch, a coin purse, and a golden Gucci wallet box — albeit not of the apprehending team. Since the drug specimens were found in their respective containers, as specifically alleged in the Information, and since the containers were marked upon seizure, there was little point in transferring and combining all specimens in a singular evidence bag or container. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, given due credence by the lower courts, adequately established an unbroken chain of custody. The Court emphasized that since the purpose of the envelope or evidence bag is to prevent switching or contamination of the seized drugs, it is not so much the type or designation of the container used to store the drug evidence that matters but the manner in which said evidence was handled and transferred from one officer to another in the chain of custody. Indeed, if the drug evidence is improperly handled or transferred, then even the use of an evidence bag or appropriate container would not validate custody of the evidence. The Court cited People vs. Habana as instructive, which held that it is imperative for the officer who seized the substance to place their marking on its plastic container and seal the same, and that if the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the prosecution would have to present every police officer, messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel in the entire chain of custody. Here, aside from the seized drugs being already contained in heat-sealed plastic packets and marked, which packets were likewise contained in marked containers, the prosecution witnesses sufficiently narrated how said items were carefully handled and transferred from one person to another until they reached the trial court. The Court also noted that 16.9618 grams of shabu is hardly miniscule for that type of drugs, citing Ramos and People vs. Veloo for the proposition that a more exacting standard is required of law enforcers when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs are seized, and that the fact that the drugs were in heat-sealed packets already minimized, if not eliminated, such risks.
• Proper Penalty: The Court held that Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 states that if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is 10 grams or more but less than 50 grams, the penalty shall be life imprisonment and a fine ranging from PHP 400,000.00 to PHP 500,000.00. Since the total quantity of drugs involved is 16.9618 grams of shabu, the Court modified the penalty imposed by the RTC to life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 500,000.00.

• Chain of Custody Rule — The chain of custody rule requires that the seized drugs be handled and transferred from one officer to another in a manner that preserves the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The Court applied this doctrine by examining whether the prosecution established every link in the chain of custody from the time the drugs were seized and inventoried right after the search, to the time they were brought to the police station for booking, investigation, and forensic analysis, up until their presentation in court. The Court found that the testimonies of PO1 Togores and the forensic chemist sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody.
• Evidence Bag Requirement — The use of an evidence bag or appropriate container for seized drug evidence is not an absolute requirement under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and the chain of custody rule. The purpose of the envelope or evidence bag is to prevent switching or contamination of the seized drugs. What matters is not so much the type or designation of the container used to store the drug evidence but the manner in which said evidence was handled and transferred from one officer to another in the chain of custody. If the drug evidence is improperly handled or transferred, then even the use of an evidence bag or appropriate container would not validate custody of the evidence.
• Strictness of Chain of Custody Based on Quantity — A more exacting standard is required of law enforcers when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs are seized from the accused, since miniscule amounts are more prone to tampering, loss, or mistake. As long as the integrity of the drug specimens is preserved, the application of the chain of custody rule for considerable amounts of drugs need not necessarily be of the same level of strictness as that applied to miniscule amounts. The fact that the drugs were in heat-sealed packets already minimized, if not eliminated, such risks.

• "Where there is no proof that an evidence bag was used to store seized drug evidence, the primary consideration for courts is the manner in which the evidence was handled and transferred from one officer to another in the chain of custody, taking into account the type and amount of drugs involved, and whether the circumstances warrant a different type of handling or container." — This is the opening statement of the decision and articulates the core principle that guides the Court's analysis of the evidence bag issue.
• "Verily, since the purpose of the envelope or evidence bag is to prevent switching or contamination of the seized drugs, it is not so much the type or designation of the container used to store the drug evidence that matters but the manner in which said evidence was handled and transferred from one officer to another in the chain of custody. Indeed, if the drug evidence is improperly handled or transferred, then even the use of an evidence bag or appropriate container would not validate custody of the evidence." — This passage states the ratio decidendi of the case, establishing that the manner of handling and transfer is the controlling consideration, not the type of container used.
• "While it was not shown that the seized items were placed in an evidence bag, the use of such a container is not automatically fatal since it is not required under Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 and the chain of custody rule." — This passage directly answers the central issue raised by the accused-appellant and clarifies that the evidence bag is not a statutory requirement.

• People vs. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) — Cited as the case where the Court first mentioned the use of the envelope or evidence bag in the now oft-cited formulation that seized items shall be placed in an envelope or evidence bag unless the type and quantity of the seized items require a different type of handling and/or container.
• Tumabini vs. People, 871 Phil. 289 (2020) — Cited for the ruling that aside from marking, the seized items should be placed in an envelope or an evidence bag unless the type and quantity of these items require a different type of handling and/or container, and that the purpose of placing the seized item in an envelope or evidence bag is to ensure that the item is secured from tampering.
• People vs. Alvarado, 830 Phil. 785 (2018) — Distinguished from the present case; in that case, the prosecution failed to establish that the plastic sachets containing shabu were properly handled and sealed in a container or evidence bag during transfer.
• Ramos vs. People, 826 Phil. 663 (2018) — Distinguished from the present case; in that case, the arresting officers should have secured the seized items by placing them in a singular evidence bag or plastic container to avoid tampering, planting, or alteration, and the drugs were only belatedly placed in an evidence bag at the police station.
• People vs. Magayon, 885 Phil. 579 (2020) — Cited as a case where the Court convicted the accused despite no mention of an evidence bag, since the testimonies of the arresting officer and the forensic chemist sufficiently established every link in the chain of custody.
• People vs. Habana, 628 Phil. 334 (2010) — Cited as instructive for the proposition that it is imperative for the officer who seized the substance to place their marking on its plastic container and seal the same, and that if the sealing has not been made, the prosecution would have to present every officer in the entire chain of custody.
• People vs. Veloo, 899 Phil. 688 (2021) — Cited for the ruling that as long as the integrity of the drug specimens is preserved, the application of the chain of custody rule for considerable amounts of drugs need not necessarily be of the same level of strictness as that applied to miniscule amounts, and that the fact that the drugs were in heat-sealed packets minimized, if not eliminated, such risks.

• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — The provision defining and penalizing illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The Court applied this provision to convict Soriano of illegal possession of 16.9618 grams of shabu and to impose the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 500,000.00, since the quantity is 10 grams or more but less than 50 grams.
• Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 — The provision establishing the chain of custody rule for seized drugs. The Court held that the use of an evidence bag is not required under this provision and the chain of custody rule.
• Section 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court — The provision regarding the return of search warrants. Accused-appellant argued that non-compliance with this provision was fatal to the establishment of the corpus delicti.
• Section 81(b), Republic Act No. 9165 — The provision mandating the Dangerous Drugs Board to promulgate regulations regarding the custody and disposition of seized drugs, pursuant to which DDB Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002 was promulgated.
• Section 2, Republic Act No. 10640 — The provision mandating the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency to promulgate guidelines implementing Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 as amended, pursuant to which the 2015 PDEA Guidelines were promulgated.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Hernando, Zalameda, and Marquez, JJ., concurred.