People of the Philippines vs. Clover A. Villarta

In prosecutions for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody and prove the identity and integrity of the seized drugs with moral certainty; failure to mark the drugs immediately upon seizure and to comply with the Section 21 inventory and photograph requirements, absent justifiable grounds, warrants acquittal on reasonable doubt.

Clover A. Villarta was charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for the alleged sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Section 21 of RA 9165, later amended by RA 10640, governs the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs and prescribes requirements for marking, inventory, photographing, and preservation of the chain of custody.

On April 2, 2010, at the Investigation and Detective Management Branch Office, Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City, a confidential agent told PO2 Joseph Bugtai and fellow police officers PO3 Regalado Dela Victoria, PO3 Melbert Dio, PO1 Alain Dignos, PO3 Almer Maglinte, and SPO1 Alfredo Petallar that a certain Jake was engaged in illegal drug activities on Sanciangko Street near Sugo Hotel. The officers planned a buy-bust operation, coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency through a Coordination Form and Pre-Operation Report, and designated PO2 Bugtai as poseur-buyer. The confidential agent had already made a pre-arranged deal with Jake. The buy-bust money consisted of two ₱100 bills bearing SPO1 Petallar's initials and had been photographed.

At around 12:30 a.m. on April 3, 2010, PO2 Bugtai and the confidential agent arrived at Sanciangko Street on a motorcycle while the rest of the team followed in an unmarked service vehicle. Jake approached them and asked the confidential agent whether PO2 Bugtai was the buyer; the agent answered yes. Jake said the "item" was worth ₱200.00 and, upon PO2 Bugtai's request, showed it to him. PO2 Bugtai said, "Okay, we're good," and Jake delivered the item while PO2 Bugtai handed over the buy-bust money. After the exchange, PO2 Bugtai flashed the pre-arranged signal by touching his hair with his left hand. His companions rushed in; PO2 Bugtai held Jake and tried to recover the buy-bust money, and after a scuffle recovered it with help. He arrested Jake, informed him of the offense and his rights, and conducted a body search for deadly weapons, recovering two packs of shabu from the right pocket of Jake's short pants.

PO2 Bugtai kept custody of the dangerous drugs from the place of the incident to the IDMB office. The buy-bust team had no container to seal the seized drugs and no marking paraphernalia at the time. At the police station, PO2 Bugtai marked the drug subject of the sale as CAV-BB and the two items recovered during the body search as CAV and CAV-1. After marking, the team requested laboratory examination and PO2 Bugtai delivered the drugs to the crime laboratory. PO3 Dela Victoria took pictures of the drugs. SPO1 Petallar signed the inventory that PO2 Bugtai prepared, with a notation that "no barangay official available to sign the inventory receipt"; no representative from the media or the Department of Justice signed because of difficulty in getting their presence early in the morning.

The prosecution and defense stipulated on SPO1 Petallar's testimony: he was one of the back-ups in the buy-bust operation; he rushed up after seeing the pre-arranged signal to assist the poseur-buyer in arresting the accused; the buy-bust money was recovered by PO2 Bugtai and could be identified through SPO1 Petallar's marking; and he had no personal knowledge of the actual exchange of money for shabu. They also stipulated on the testimony of Forensic Chemist Ryan Sala: the defense admitted his expertise, that he examined the evidence, and that he prepared Chemistry Report No. D-307-2010; the prosecution admitted that Sala had no knowledge as to the source of the evidence and whether there was tampering before delivery to the Crime Laboratory. The prosecution dispensed with Sala's testimony. The prosecution offered, and the RTC admitted, a Coordination Form, a Pre-Operational Report, two ₱100 bills used as buy-bust money, the object evidence, a letter-request for laboratory examination, photographs, an Inventory Receipt, the pertinent police blotter page, and Chemistry Report No. D-307-2010.

Appellant Clover A. Villarta was the sole witness for the defense. He testified that on April 2, 2010 he was in his sister's house and texted his acquaintance Mark for a date; he arrived at Sogo Hotel at about 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. and waited for Mark, who arrived around 12:30 a.m. on April 3, 2010. After he told Mark they would go inside Sogo Hotel, around four people in civilian attire suddenly told him he was under arrest. He was shocked and resisted. He saw one of those trying to arrest him slip something into his pocket because he was wearing six-pocket shorts. When he asked the reason for his arrest, he was beaten after saying the evidence was planted. He did not see the person who slipped something into his pocket. Mark was present and told him that what happened was "just fair" because he did not immediately give them money; Mark probably set him up. He had known Mark only a month before his arrest. He was certain he was transferred from one police station to another but could not recall whether he was first brought to the Mabolo police station and then to the Gorordo police station. Mark was no longer present when he was brought to the police station. He was punched in the stomach at the police station when he shouted that the prohibited substance was planted by the police. The only police officer present during his arrest was SPO1 Petallar; the others were strangers to him. He believed Mark was in league with the policemen who planted the drug on him, and that Mark became angry because he did not readily share his money; during a previous meeting Mark hinted that he wanted money but appellant had to leave to attend to a client's inquiry about a property in Collinwood Subdivision. He did not know much about Mark except unverified information that Mark was a Criminology graduate and that his father was a Colonel. The policemen never returned his bag and its contents. He learned only two days after his arrest that cases for illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs had been filed against him. He claimed the charges were fabricated; that PO2 Bugtai, the alleged poseur-buyer, was never present during the arrest as shown by the latter's incorrect statements regarding the location of his fellow police officers during the arrest; and that there was no transaction involving drugs. He did not file a case against the policemen because he was in jail and knew that no case against them would prosper. Before his arrest he was a licensed real estate consultant, not a drug peddler, earning good income and having won the top seller award five times; he did not hire a private lawyer because he had no more income and his savings were to be used for his needs in jail and payments for his house where his parents also lived. He offered in evidence an Identification Card issued to him by Primary Homes, Inc., which the RTC admitted.

The RTC found that Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 had been substantially complied with; that the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs had been proved; and that the movement of the drugs from the crime scene to the police station, then to the PNP Crime Laboratory, and thereafter to the court had been established. It found that the drugs had been marked, photographed, and presented in court; that the buy-bust money had been produced and identified; that there was no evidence of tampering or alteration; and that an inventory was made and a receipt issued. It rejected appellant's uncorroborated claim that the drugs were planted, found no reason why the policemen would do that, found no ill motive on PO2 Bugtai's part, and described his testimony as straightforward. It also found that the elements of both crimes had been proved and that the two sachets were found in appellant's pocket, from which intent to possess could be gathered. The CA affirmed the RTC's findings.

• Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Appellant argued that the RTC erred in convicting him of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Unreliable Chain of Custody and Corpus Delicti: Appellant argued that the RTC also erred in convicting him of violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 despite the prosecution's failure to prove the corpus delicti because the chain of custody was unreliable.
• Fabricated Charges and Planting of Evidence: Appellant claimed that the charges were fabricated, that no drug transaction occurred, that the alleged poseur-buyer PO2 Bugtai was not present during the arrest, and that the drugs were planted on him.

• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Office of the Solicitor General insisted that the prosecution had proven appellant's culpability beyond reasonable doubt.
• Lack of Merit: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that appellant's plea for the reversal of his conviction lacked merit.

• Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the prosecution proved appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
• Corpus Delicti and Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution established the corpus delicti and an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs.
• Compliance with Section 21, RA 9165: Whether the prosecution complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, or offered justifiable grounds for non-compliance, regarding the marking, inventory, photographing, and custody of the seized drugs.

• Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: No. The prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence and to prove appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal was warranted.
• Corpus Delicti and Chain of Custody: No. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, and the identity and integrity of the seized drugs were not preserved.
• Compliance with Section 21, RA 9165: No. The buy-bust team failed to mark the drugs immediately at the crime scene, failed to conduct a valid inventory and photograph in the presence of the required witnesses, and failed to offer justifiable grounds for non-compliance.

• Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Constitution mandates that an accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies with the prosecution to overcome the presumption by presenting the required quantum of evidence; it must rest on its own merits and cannot rely on the weakness of the defense. If the prosecution fails, the defense need not present evidence, and the accused must be acquitted. Although trial court findings affirmed by the CA are generally entitled to great weight, that rule does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied, as here. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt because it did not establish the corpus delicti, an unbroken chain of custody, or any explanation for non-compliance with Section 21.

• Corpus Delicti and Chain of Custody: For illegal sale, the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration of the sale, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. For illegal possession, it must establish possession, lack of authority, and conscious awareness of possession. In both crimes, the dangerous drug seized is the corpus delicti, and its identity and integrity must be established with moral certainty. The chain of custody rule requires four links: (1) seizure and marking, if practicable, by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist; and (4) turnover and submission from the forensic chemist to the court. The first link was broken: PO2 Bugtai seized the drugs at the locus criminis but did not mark them immediately, marking them only at the police station because the team had no container or marking paraphernalia. Jurisprudence holds that marking immediately upon seizure is indispensable and that failure to do so casts doubt on the prosecution evidence. The inventory was undated and lacked the signatures of the accused or his representative or counsel, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. PO2 Bugtai had no personal knowledge of the inventory's preparation because SPO1 Petallar signed it, and SPO1 Petallar did not testify on the matter. The photographs were not authenticated, and no photographs showed the evidence with the accused or a barangay representative. As to the third and fourth links, the forensic chemist's testimony was dispensed with, and the stipulation admitted that he had no knowledge of the source of the evidence or whether it had been tampered with before delivery. There was also no evidence showing how the seized drugs were handled, stored, and safeguarded pending presentation in court. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody.

• Compliance with Section 21, RA 9165: Section 21 requires the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official who must sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy. Non-compliance does not necessarily invalidate the seizure and custody if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence are preserved. Here, no justifiable grounds existed. The explanations that it was nighttime or dawn, that no camera was available, and that the team had no marking paraphernalia were not acceptable; RA 9165 and its IRR had been in effect since 2002, while the incident occurred in 2010, and the team could have put a system in place. The prosecution failed to show that it even tried to contact the required witnesses. The Inventory Receipt was undated and unsigned by the required persons, and the photographs were unauthenticated. RA 10640 still requires inventory and photographs, underscoring their indispensability. Because non-compliance was inexcusable, the identity and integrity of the drugs used as evidence were tainted, and acquittal on reasonable doubt was required.

• Chain of Custody Rule — In dangerous drugs cases, the seized drug is the corpus delicti, and its identity and integrity must be established with moral certainty. The prosecution must establish four links: (1) seizure and marking, if practicable, by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist; and (4) turnover and submission from the forensic chemist to the court. The Court applied the rule and found the first link broken because PO2 Bugtai did not mark the drugs immediately upon seizure, and the third and fourth links doubtful because the forensic chemist had no knowledge of the source or possible tampering and there was no evidence of handling and safekeeping pending court presentation.

• Strict Compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 — The apprehending team must immediately inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official who must sign the inventory copies. Non-compliance may be excused only with justifiable grounds and preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs. The Court found no justifiable grounds; the inventory was undated and unsigned by the required witnesses, the photographs were unauthenticated, and the team failed to show any attempt to secure the required witnesses.

• Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof — An accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution bears the burden of overcoming the presumption by presenting the required quantum of evidence and must rest on its own merits, not on the weakness of the defense. If it fails, the accused must be acquitted. The Court applied this principle because the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti and chain of custody.

• Corpus Delicti in Illegal Drugs Cases — The dangerous drug itself is the corpus delicti of illegal sale and illegal possession. Conviction cannot be sustained if doubt persists as to the identity of the drugs. The Court found such doubt because the chain of custody was broken and the evidence's integrity was not preserved.

• "The identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the dangerous drug illegally possessed and sold is the same drug offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict." — This passage states the quantum and identity requirement for dangerous drugs cases, which the Court used to measure the prosecution's evidence.
• "As a general rule, the prosecution must endeavour to establish four links in the chain of 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 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 is the canonical formulation of the four-link chain of custody rule that the Court applied in finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient.
• 'Given the foregoing admission by the only witness to testify for the prosecution, "[i]t is evident that there was a break [a gap, or an interval] in the very first link of the chain when [this police officer] failed to mark the sachets of shabu immediately upon seizing them from the appellant."' — This passage identifies the first fatal break in the chain of custody: the failure to mark the seized drugs immediately at the crime scene.
• 'In brief, this Court is constrained to acquit appellant based on reasonable doubt in view of the prosecution's failure to "(1) overcome the presumption of innocence x x x; (2) prove the corpus delicti of the crime: (3) establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs; and [(4)] offer any explanation why the provisions of Section 21, RA 9165 were not complied with".' — This passage summarizes the four grounds for acquittal and the Court's ratio decidendi.

• People vs. Havana, G.R. No. 198450, January 13, 2016, 778 SCRA 524 — Relied upon for the rule that the forensic chemist's testimony must categorically assert that the substance examined and presented in court was the same substance recovered from the accused; the Court cited it because the stipulation admitted the chemist had no knowledge of the source or possible tampering.
• People vs. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 208095, September 20, 2017 — Cited for the ruling that an undated inventory fails to satisfy the requirement that inventory be made immediately after seizure, and that conviction cannot be sustained if doubt persists on the identity of the drugs.
• People vs. Miranda, Jr., G.R. No. 206880, June 29, 2016, 795 SCRA 227 — Cited for the rule that inexcusable failure to observe the physical inventory and photograph requirements justifies acquittal based on reasonable doubt; the Court found the proffered excuses for non-compliance unacceptable.
• People vs. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017 — Cited for the rule that failure to mark the drugs immediately after seizure breaks the first link in the chain of custody and casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal.
• People vs. Prudencio, G.R. No. 203148, November 16, 2016, 809 SCRA 204 — Cited for the rule that there is a gap or break in the fourth link where there is no evidence showing how the seized shabu was handled, stored, and safeguarded pending its presentation in court, and that compliance with Section 21 must be observed.

• Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 — Defines and penalizes illegal sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs. The appellant was charged and convicted under this provision, but the conviction was reversed because the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti and chain of custody.
• Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 — Defines and penalizes illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The appellant was charged and convicted under this provision, but the conviction was reversed for the same failure of proof.
• Section 21, Article II, RA 9165 — Requires the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official who must sign the inventory copies. The Court found non-compliance and no justifiable grounds.
• Section 21, Article II, RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640 — The amended provision still requires physical inventory and photographing of seized items, with non-compliance excused only on justifiable grounds and preservation of integrity and evidentiary value. The Court cited it to underscore the indispensability of inventory and photographs.
• 1987 Constitution — Presumption of Innocence — The decision cites the constitutional mandate that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court applied it in holding that the prosecution's failure to prove guilt required acquittal.
• Section 1(b), Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. Series of 2002 — Cited in the decision for the definition of chain of custody as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, safekeeping, presentation in court, and destruction. The Court used this definition in analyzing the broken chain.

Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, and Tijam, JJ., concurred. Sereno, C.J., was on leave.