People of the Philippines vs. Bienvenido Miranda y Feliciano

Non-compliance with the marking, inventory, and photograph requirements of Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 does not render the seized drugs inadmissible; substantial compliance suffices so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires proof of the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor; conviction for illegal possession requires proof that the accused was in possession of an item identified to be a prohibited drug, that such possession was not authorized by law, and that he freely and consciously possessed the drug.

The prosecution arose under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which penalizes the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II and their illegal possession under Section 11, Article II. Section 21 of the law's Implementing Rules and Regulations, read with Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, prescribes the manner by which confiscated drugs are to be inventoried, photographed, and kept in custody from the moment of seizure to their presentation in court. The accused, Bienvenido Miranda y Feliciano, was charged in two separate Informations with the illegal sale and illegal possession of methylamphetamine hydrochloride following a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in Mabalacat, Pampanga.

The charges against Bienvenido Miranda y Feliciano, also known as "Dawie," stemmed from two Informations both dated July 14, 2003. The first, docketed as Criminal Case No. DC-03-316, charged him with illegal possession of 0.0759 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165; the second, docketed as Criminal Case No. DC-03-317, charged him with the illegal sale of 0.0363 gram of shabu to a poseur-buyer for ₱200.00 in violation of Section 5 of the same law. At arraignment, Miranda pleaded not guilty to both charges. At pre-trial, the parties stipulated on his identity and on the fact that he was also known as "Dawie," on the transmittal of the substance to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for examination pursuant to a letter-request coming from the PDEA Region III Office, on the issuance by the PNP Crime Laboratory of a Chemistry Report, and on the fact that the substance examined turned out to be positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

Acting on a tip from a confidential informant that a certain alias "Dawie," later identified as the appellant, was actively engaged in selling shabu in Purok Roxas, Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga, Police Chief Inspector Manuel Chica of PDEA-Region 3 immediately formed a team composed of Barangay Chairman Marcelino Cruz of San Francisco, Mabalacat, Pampanga and Police Officer 2 Richard Lambino to conduct a buy-bust operation on July 11, 2003. P/CI Chica designated himself as the poseur-buyer and prepared the buy-bust money consisting of two one-hundred-peso bills, with Serial Nos. EP093837 and ST774601, which he marked by placing a dot on the forehead of the picture of the late President Manuel A. Roxas printed on the said bills. At around 4:30 p.m. of the same date, the team proceeded to the target area and strategically positioned themselves around it as P/CI Chica and the informant approached the appellant. The informant introduced P/CI Chica to the appellant as the buyer of shabu. The appellant readily handed to P/CI Chica a plastic sachet containing suspected shabu, and in return, P/CI Chica paid him the marked money. When P/CI Chica made the pre-arranged signal, the other members of the team rushed to the scene and he introduced himself as a police officer. The appellant tried to flee, but Chairman Cruz was able to grab him by his left hand and recover another plastic sachet of suspected shabu. The police officers then asked the appellant to empty his pockets, and they recovered the marked money from him. Thereafter, they immediately brought the appellant, together with the seized drugs, to the PDEA office for investigation.

At the PDEA office, P/CI Chica and Chairman Cruz, among others, prepared the Receipt of Property Seized/Confiscations, which the appellant refused to sign. P/CI Chica marked the sachet bought from the appellant with the markings "MCC BFM Exhibit A" and the sachet recovered by Chairman Cruz from the appellant as "MCC BFM B," the initials standing for Manuel Cordovis Chica and Bienvenido Feliciano Miranda. P/CI Chica also prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination dated July 11, 2003 indicating that "MCC BFM Exhibit A" weighed approximately 0.0363 gram while "MCC BFM B" weighed approximately 0.0759 gram. PO2 Lambino brought the said Request and the two specimens to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The laboratory examination of the two specimens, as contained in Chemistry Report No. D-324-2003 dated July 12, 2003, yielded a positive result for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Chairman Cruz, who testified that he had been deputized by PDEA-Region 3 to assist in anti-drug operations in its area of responsibility, corroborated P/CI Chica's testimony on the details and circumstances of the buy-bust operation.

The defense gave a different version of the story. The appellant denied the offenses charged and narrated that while he was on his way home from his work at Dau Supermart, Marina Arcade at around 4:00 p.m. of July 11, 2003, he saw two cars from which the persons who arrested him alighted when he reached the corner of Roxas Street. He recognized one of those who handcuffed him as one Major Chica. When he asked Major Chica the reason for his arrest, the latter replied that the police officers were able to buy shabu from him. He posited that it was not possible for him to have sold shabu to them because he had just come from work and he saw them only at the corner of Roxas Street. He stressed that there were several people who witnessed the incident, but they were afraid of narrating the actual events because the police officers poked their guns at them; even the barangay chairman of Roxas, Dau, one Dominador "Doming" Paniza, saw the incident but was likewise afraid of the police officers. He added that he was subsequently detained at a PDEA safehouse in Barangay San Francisco, Mabalacat, Pampanga and was later charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

The RTC found that the narration of P/CI Chica, as corroborated by Chairman Cruz, proved that the appellant indeed committed the crimes and that all the elements thereof were present, and it held that the appellant's sole defense of denial could not prevail over the positive and direct assertions of the prosecution witnesses, noting that he failed to show any motive on the part of the police officers when they arrested him. In his cross-examination, the appellant could not think of any reason why the police officers would fabricate stories against him and charge him with two serious offenses. The trial court gave more credence to the version of the prosecution, and the Court of Appeals affirmed its factual findings.

• Contradictory Testimonies: The Public Attorney's Office averred that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory and conflicting.
• Improper Initiation of the Buy-Bust Operation: It appears from the testimony of P/CI Chica that the one who determined the propriety of conducting the buy-bust operation was the civilian informant.
• Lack of Proof of Authority of the Civilian Asset: The prosecution failed to present any document proving that Chairman Cruz is a duly designated agent of the PDEA.
• Identity of the Corpus Delicti: The appellant's guilt was tainted with reasonable doubt because the prosecution failed to prove that the sachets allegedly confiscated from him were the same ones submitted to the forensic chemist for examination.
• Broken Chain of Custody: The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the evidence; apart from the marking made by P/CI Chica on the specimens, there was no testimony that the specimens were photographed in the presence of the appellant, a member of the media, a Department of Justice representative, and an elective government official; the marking was not done immediately upon seizure, the specimens having been marked only upon arrival at the PDEA office; Chairman Cruz was unable to identify the specimens during his testimony; and PO2 Lambino, who allegedly delivered the specimens to the PNP Crime Laboratory, did not testify as to how he handled the items while in his custody.

• Sufficiency of the Prosecution's Evidence: The Office of the Solicitor General maintained that the prosecution was able to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering that all the essential elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of drugs were duly established.
• Unbroken Chain of Custody: The chain of custody was not broken, as P/CI Chica positively identified the sachet of shabu which he himself bought from the appellant and the additional sachet recovered from the latter at the time of his arrest, made the proper markings thereon, prepared an inventory and a request for examination, and submitted the same to the PNP Crime Laboratory through PO2 Lambino.
• Positive Laboratory Findings and In-Court Identification: The laboratory results revealed that the specimens were found to be shabu, and the said specimens were presented and identified by P/CI Chica during trial.

• Sufficiency of the Prosecution's Evidence: Whether the guilt of the accused for illegal sale and illegal possession of methylamphetamine hydrochloride under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Chain of Custody and Section 21 Compliance: Whether the failure of the buy-bust team to immediately mark the seized drugs and to photograph the same in the presence of the appellant, a member of the media, a Department of Justice representative, and an elective government official, as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, created doubt as to the identity and integrity of the drugs and resulted in a break in the chain of custody.

• Sufficiency of the Prosecution's Evidence: Yes. The prosecution sufficiently discharged the burden of establishing the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs and of proving the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the identity of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration and the delivery and payment having been established, and the second sachet having been recovered from the appellant at the time of his arrest.
• Chain of Custody and Section 21 Compliance: No. Non-compliance with the marking, inventory, and photograph requirements of Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal and does not render the seized items inadmissible, substantial compliance being sufficient where the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are preserved.

• Sufficiency of the Prosecution's Evidence: Conviction in prosecutions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proper when two elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The prosecution duly established the identity of the seller, the appellant, and of the buyer, P/CI Chica as poseur-buyer; the object of the transaction was a sachet of methylamphetamine hydrochloride marked as "MCC BFM Exhibit A" weighing approximately 0.0363 gram; and the consideration was the ₱200.00 marked money. Both the object and the consideration were sufficiently established through testimonial and documentary evidence. As to delivery and payment, P/CI Chica categorically testified that he caught the appellant in flagrante delicto selling and delivering the shabu during a buy-bust operation and that he personally handed the marked money to the appellant as payment. The sale was brought about by a buy-bust operation, a form of entrapment resorted to for trapping and capturing criminals, which is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken. As to illegal possession, the elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. These elements were likewise present: after the appellant sold him shabu, another plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance was recovered by Chairman Cruz from the appellant at the time of his arrest, marked as "MCC BFM B," weighing approximately 0.0759 gram, submitted to the crime laboratory for analysis, and positively found to contain shabu. P/CI Chica identified in court the sachet marked "MCC BFM Exhibit A" as the very sachet he bought from the appellant and the sachet marked "MCC BFM B" as the one recovered by Chairman Cruz at the time of the arrest; the seized items, proven positive for shabu, were properly identified and presented before the court. Full faith and credence was given to the testimonies of the police officers, and the presumption of regularity in the apprehending officers' performance of official duty was upheld, it being a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner unless there is evidence to the contrary. The appellant failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn that presumption; except for his bare allegation of denial, nothing supported his claim that the police officers were impelled by improper motives to testify against him, and he could not think of any reason why they would fabricate stories against him and charge him with two serious offenses. Denial is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution; negative and self-serving denial deserves no weight in law when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, and such defense, like frame-up, is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The RTC gave more credence to the version of the prosecution, and no reason appeared to disagree, it being well settled that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal. Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conduct the buy-bust operation, and appellate courts, upon established precedents and of necessity, rely on the assessment of the credibility of witnesses by the trial courts, which have the unique opportunity, unavailable to the appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination.
• Chain of Custody and Section 21 Compliance: Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 requires that the apprehending officer or team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The provision itself, however, lays down exceptions to its requirements, expressly providing that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. Thus, non-compliance with the above-mentioned requirements is not fatal; it has been ruled time and again that non-compliance with Section 21 of the IRR does not make the items seized inadmissible, and substantial compliance thereof is sufficient. What is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines "chain of custody" as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction, such record of movements and custody to include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody was made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. Four links must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: 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. In this case, the chain of custody was duly established through the following links: (1) P/CI Chica marked the seized sachet subject of the buy-bust operation as "MCC BFM Exhibit A" and the sachet recovered by Chairman Cruz as "MCC BFM B"; (2) a request for laboratory examination of the seized items so marked was signed by P/CI Chica; (3) the request and the marked items seized, which were personally delivered by PO2 Lambino, were received by the PNP Crime Laboratory; (4) Chemistry Report No. D-324-2003 confirmed that the marked items seized from the appellant were methylamphetamine hydrochloride; and (5) the marked items were offered in evidence. As the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved, there was no reason to overturn the findings of the RTC that the drugs seized from the appellant were the same ones presented during trial. In sum, no reversible error was committed by the RTC and the CA in convicting the appellant of illegal sale and possession of drugs as to warrant the modification, much less the reversal, thereof, it being a hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are binding on the Supreme Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error.

• Elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs — Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs if the following elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The Court applied the rule to the buy-bust operation, finding that the appellant was the seller, P/CI Chica the poseur-buyer, the sachet marked "MCC BFM Exhibit A" weighing 0.0363 gram the object, and the ₱200.00 marked money the consideration, with delivery and payment established by P/CI Chica's categorical testimony.
• Elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs — The elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. The Court found all three present, the second sachet marked "MCC BFM B" weighing 0.0759 gram having been recovered from the appellant at the time of his arrest and positively found to contain shabu.
• Buy-Bust Operation — A form of entrapment resorted to for trapping and capturing criminals; it is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken, and is employed to trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. The Court relied on this doctrine to uphold the validity of the operation that led to the appellant's arrest.
• Substantial Compliance with Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 — Non-compliance with the marking, inventory, and photograph requirements of Section 21 does not render the seized items inadmissible; substantial compliance is sufficient, and what is essential is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court applied the doctrine to excuse the belated marking of the specimens at the PDEA office and the absence of photographs taken in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elective government official.
• Chain of Custody — Defined under Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction. In a buy-bust situation, four links must be established: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. The Court found all four links duly established.
• Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duty — In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner unless there is evidence to the contrary. The presumption was upheld because the appellant failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn it.
• Defense of Denial — Denial is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution; negative and self-serving denial deserves no weight in law when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, and such defense, like frame-up, is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The Court rejected the appellant's denial for lack of substantiation and for his failure to show any improper motive on the part of the arresting officers.
• Credibility Findings of the Trial Court — In the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal; appellate courts rely on the trial courts' assessment because of the latter's unique opportunity, unavailable to appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination. The Court deferred to the RTC's assessment, which the CA had affirmed.
• Binding Effect of the CA's Factual Findings — The factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are binding on the Supreme Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error. The Court found the case to be no exception to the rule.

• "Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs if the following elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereto." — This passage states the canonical two-element formulation for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, which the Court applied to sustain the conviction in Criminal Case No. DC-03-317.
• "Substantial compliance thereof is sufficient. 'What is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.'" — This is the ratio decidendi on the appellant's chain-of-custody challenge, holding that the belated marking and the absence of the prescribed photograph-and-inventory witnesses did not render the seized drugs inadmissible.
• "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." — This passage lays down the four links of the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, the framework against which the Court tested the prosecution's evidence.
• "The Court gives full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and upholds the presumption of regularity in the apprehending officers' performance of official duty. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary." — This passage articulates the presumption of regularity relied upon in rejecting the appellant's defense of denial and frame-up.

• People vs. Fundales, Jr., G.R. No. 184606, September 5, 2012, 680 SCRA 181, 190 (citing People vs. Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, August 16, 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 339) — Cited as the source of the two elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs applied to sustain the conviction.
• People vs. Feliciano, 648 Phil. 653, 661 (2010) — Cited for the rule that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment resorted to for trapping and capturing criminals, legal and effective provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.
• People vs. Politico, 647 Phil. 728, 741 (2010) — Cited for the three elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
• People vs. Marcelino, 639 Phil. 643, 654 (2010) — Cited for the rule that credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, they being presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner unless evidence to the contrary exists.
• People vs. Honrado, G.R. No. 182197, February 27, 2012, 667 SCRA 45, 53-54 — Cited for the rule that denial, like frame-up, is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act and deserves no weight in law when unsubstantiated.
• People vs. Remerata, 449 Phil. 813, 822 (2003) — Cited for the rule that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal absent palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.
• People vs. Desuyo, 639 Phil. 601, 617 (2010) — Cited for the rule that appellate courts rely on the trial courts' assessment of witness credibility because of the latter's unique opportunity to observe the witnesses.
• People vs. Araza, G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014, p. 10 (citing People vs. Guiara, 616 Phil. 290, 308 (2009)) — Cited for the rule that non-compliance with Section 21 of the IRR does not make the items seized inadmissible and that substantial compliance is sufficient.
• People vs. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416, 434 (2009) — Cited for the essentiality of the chain of custody requirement in removing doubts regarding the identity of the evidence.
• People vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 197550, September 25, 2013, 706 SCRA 337, 353 (citing People vs. Magpayo, 648 Phil. 641, 650 (2010)) — Cited for the four links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation.
• People vs. Castro, 667 Phil. 526, 540 (2011) — Cited for the rule that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are binding on the Supreme Court unless tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error.

• Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Penalizes the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs, imposing the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000,000.00 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. This was the provision violated in Criminal Case No. DC-03-317, for which the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine.
• Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Penalizes the possession of dangerous drugs. Under paragraph (3) thereof, if the quantity of shabu involved is less than five (5) grams, the penalty is imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from ₱300,000.00 to ₱400,000.00. This was the provision violated in Criminal Case No. DC-03-316, for which the appellant was sentenced to twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum of reclusion temporal and a ₱300,000.00 fine.
• Section 21, IRR of R.A. No. 9165 — Requires the apprehending officer or team having initial custody and control of the drugs to physically inventory and photograph the same immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof, with the physical inventory and photograph to be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served or at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer or team in case of warrantless seizures. It further provides that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. The Court invoked this express exception to hold that the belated marking and the absence of the prescribed witnesses did not invalidate the seizure.
• Section 1(b), DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 (Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment) — Defines "chain of custody" as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction, including the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody, the date and time of the transfer of custody, and the final disposition. The Court used this definition as the framework for assessing the movement of the seized specimens.
• Section 13, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Cited in the Chief Justice's certification that the conclusions in the Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

• Diosdado M. Peralta (Acting Chairperson, Third Division)
• Mariano C. del Castillo
• Jose Portugal Perez
• Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno issued the certification pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and the Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation.