People of the Philippines vs. Teng Moner y Adam

Noncompliance with the Section 21 chain-of-custody requirements does not automatically render seized dangerous drugs inadmissible or invalidate a conviction; substantial compliance suffices where justifiable grounds exist and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

The case involves the prosecution of Teng Moner y Adam for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The governing statute, Republic Act No. 9165, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, including Section 21, prescribe the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs and require physical inventory and photographing under specified conditions. The appeal concerns the legal effect of deviations from those requirements on the admissibility and weight of the seized drugs.

On April 23, 2005, police operatives of the Las Piñas Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force arrested Joel Taudil for possession of illegal drugs. During investigation, Taudil disclosed that the source of the illegal drugs was Teng Moner, who hailed from Tandang Sora, Quezon City. Acting on this information, Police Chief Inspector Jonathan Cabal formed a buy-bust team composed of himself, SP04 Arnold Alabastro, SPO1 Warlie Hermo, PO3 Junnifer Tuldanes, PO3 Edwin Lirio, PO2 Rodel Ordinaryo, PO1 Erwin Sabbun, and PO2 Joachim Panopio. The marked and boodle money were given to PO2 Panopio, who acted as poseur-buyer. Before the operation, the team prepared a pre-operation report addressed to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, an authority to operate outside their jurisdiction, and a coordination paper; they then proceeded to the Central Police District Office at Camp Karingal, Quezon City for proper coordination. Together with Taudil and a CPD-DIID personnel, the team proceeded to No. 26 Varsity Lane, Barangay Culiat, Tandang Sora, Quezon City, conducted surveillance, and assumed their positions.

At the target area, PO2 Panopio and Taudil went to Moner’s house. While outside the gate, Taudil summoned Moner, who came out after a few minutes. The two men spoke in the Muslim dialect, and Taudil introduced PO2 Panopio as his friend who was interested in buying shabu. PO2 Panopio asked for the price of five grams of shabu, and Moner replied that it would cost ₱8,000.00 and asked whether he had the money. When PO2 Panopio confirmed that he had the money, Moner asked them to wait and went inside the house. He returned after a few minutes and handed a plastic sachet containing a substance suspected to be shabu to PO2 Panopio, who in turn gave him the marked and boodle money. Moner was about to count the money when PO2 Panopio gave the pre-arranged signal and introduced himself as a police officer. Moner resisted arrest and ran inside the house, but PO2 Panopio caught up with him. The other team members entered the house and saw the other accused gathered around a table repacking shabu. PO3 Lirio confiscated the items and placed them inside a plastic bag.

After Moner and his co-accused were arrested, the team proceeded to the Las Piñas City Police Station. The items confiscated from them were turned over by PO2 Panopio to PO3 Dalagdagan, who marked them in the presence of the police operatives, Moner, and his co-accused. PO3 Dalagdagan prepared the corresponding inventory of the confiscated items. The specimens were then brought to the police crime laboratory for testing, and they yielded positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Consequently, a case for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 was filed against Moner, and another case for violation of Section 11, Article II of the same statute was filed against him and his co-accused.

The defense presented a different account. According to Moner and his witnesses, on April 23, 2005, Moner and his co-accused in Criminal Case No. Q-05-133983 were at the house at No. 26 Varsity Lane, Philam, Tandang Sora, Quezon City to prepare for the wedding of Fatima Macabangen and Abubakar Usman, which was to be held the following day. While they were inside the house, several armed persons wearing civilian clothes entered and announced that they were police officers. They searched the whole house and gathered everyone in the living room. A police officer positioned behind Moner and Abubakar dropped a plastic sachet and asked who owned it. When Moner denied ownership, the police officer slapped him and accused him of being a liar. They were all frisked, handcuffed, and brought outside the house. Their personal effects and belongings were confiscated. They were then boarded on a jeepney and brought to the Las Piñas Police Station. Upon arrival, they were investigated, and a police officer asked them to call anyone who could help them because the police only needed money for their release. Judie Dorado called his mother. They saw the other items allegedly confiscated from them only at the police station. At around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, they were brought to Camp Crame, Quezon City; from there, they went to Makati for drug testing and were returned to the Las Piñas Police Station. Subsequently, cases for violation of Republic Act No. 9165 were filed against them.

The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s evidence and found Moner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, while acquitting him and his co-accused of illegal possession for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Court’s review relied on the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility, which the appellate court had sustained.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Moner argued that the trial court erred in finding him guilty because the testimonies of the three prosecution witnesses—PO2 Joachim Panopio, PO3 Junnifer Tuldanes, and PO3 Edwin Lirio—were highly incredible, unbelievable, and full of inconsistencies, and that the court relied solely on perjured police testimony.
• Defense Evidence: Moner maintained that the trial court erred in failing to give credence to the defense witnesses, who testified that there was no buy-bust and that he was not selling prohibited drugs.
• Non-presentation of Informant: Moner contended that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden because it did not present in court the informant who pointed to him as a supplier of shabu.
• Lack of PDEA Coordination: Moner stressed that the buy-bust operation was conducted without proper coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
• Chain of Custody and Section 21 Compliance: Moner underscored the arresting officers’ failure to comply with the statutorily mandated procedure for handling and custody of the dangerous drugs, specifically the failure to conduct physical inventory at the place of seizure, failure to photograph the seized item at the place of seizure, and failure to conduct inventory and photograph in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or media. He invoked Section 19 and Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165.
• Extortion and Frame-up: Moner alleged that the buy-bust team asked money from him and his former co-accused in exchange for their liberty.

• Elements of Illegal Sale: Whether the prosecution established the essential elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: the transaction or sale, the corpus delicti, and the identities of the buyer and seller.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses and finding Moner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• Non-presentation of Informant: Whether the prosecution’s failure to present the informant in court weakened its case against Moner.
• PDEA Coordination: Whether the buy-bust operation was invalid for lack of proper coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
• Chain of Custody and Section 21 Compliance: Whether noncompliance with the physical inventory and photograph requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations rendered the seized dangerous drugs inadmissible or required Moner’s acquittal.
• Defense of Denial/Frame-up and Extortion: Whether Moner’s defense of denial or frame-up, including his allegation that the police demanded money for his release, should be credited.

• Elements of Illegal Sale: Yes. The prosecution established the sale, presented the corpus delicti, and identified Moner as the seller through PO2 Panopio, the poseur-buyer.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: No error. The trial court’s credibility findings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great weight; the alleged inconsistencies were minor and did not deviate from the main narrative.
• Non-presentation of Informant: No. The informant’s presentation is not indispensable, especially where the poseur-buyer and other buy-bust team members testified.
• PDEA Coordination: No. Both lower courts found that prior coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency occurred, and the Supreme Court found no reason to disbelieve this finding.
• Chain of Custody and Section 21 Compliance: No. Noncompliance does not automatically render the drugs inadmissible; substantial compliance and preservation of integrity and evidentiary value were shown, with justifiable security grounds for not inventorying and photographing at the scene.
• Defense of Denial/Frame-up and Extortion: No. Denial and frame-up are viewed with disfavor; no criminal or administrative case was filed, the accusation was not confronted with prosecution witnesses, and no proof of mishandling or tampering was shown.

• Elements of Illegal Sale: The essential elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are (1) that the transaction or sale took place, (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence, and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. The records showed that the illegal drugs and the marked money were presented and identified in court. PO2 Panopio, the poseur-buyer, positively identified Moner as the seller of shabu for ₱8,000.00. These facts satisfied all three elements, so the conviction rested on sufficient proof.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The inconsistencies pointed out by Moner were minor variances that did not deviate from the main narrative that Moner sold illegal drugs to a poseur-buyer. Minor inconsistencies and contradictions in witnesses’ declarations do not destroy credibility; they may even enhance truthfulness by erasing any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. The trial court’s determination of credibility, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit, if not conclusive effect. No facts of substance and value were plainly overlooked that would affect the result.
• Non-presentation of Informant: Under People vs. Lafaran, the presentation of an informant as a witness is not indispensable to the successful prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. The informant is generally not presented for security reasons, to protect him from retaliation, and only when his testimony is absolutely essential should that security be disregarded. Here, PO2 Panopio testified as the poseur-buyer, and PO3 Tuldanes and PO3 Lirio gave clear and credible testimonies on the consummated transaction. The informant’s absence therefore did not weaken the prosecution.
• PDEA Coordination: Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals declared that the requisite prior coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency did happen. The Supreme Court’s own review provided no reason to disbelieve that established fact. The team had also prepared a pre-operation report addressed to the PDEA, an authority to operate outside their jurisdiction, and a coordination paper, and had proceeded to the Central Police District Office at Camp Karingal for proper coordination.
• Chain of Custody and Section 21 Compliance: The chain of custody rule ensures that the drug specimen presented in court is the same material seized from the accused. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules require immediate physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a media and Department of Justice representative, and an elected public official who must sign copies of the inventory. Noncompliance, however, does not render the seizure void or the drugs inadmissible if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Here, the apprehending officers marked the drugs and prepared an inventory at the Las Piñas Police Station, not at the scene, and did not photograph the items. PO2 Panopio testified that the items were turned over to PO3 Dalagdagan, who marked them in the presence of Moner and his co-accused and prepared an inventory. PO3 Tuldanes explained that the team immediately pulled out from the area because they were outside their area of responsibility and their security was at risk. The team’s precautions—proceeding first to the Central Police District Office at Camp Karingal and being accompanied by a CPD officer—supported the existence of a security risk and their unfamiliarity with the location. These circumstances showed substantial compliance. Palo vs. People held that marking at the police station and the absence of inventory or photograph do not render the seized item inadmissible; People vs. Usman held that the chain of custody is not established solely by compliance with inventory and photograph requirements, and that preservation of integrity and evidentiary value is the most important factor. Zalameda vs. People and Saraum vs. People held that noncompliance affects the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence. The forensic chemist’s testimony was dispensed with by stipulation, and the specimen tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. No proof of mishandling, tampering, or switching was presented. The chain of custody rule is a matter of evidence and procedure, and the Court has the last say on the appreciation of evidence; noncompliance does not automatically destroy the prosecution’s case.
• Defense of Denial/Frame-up and Extortion: The allegation that the buy-bust team asked for money in exchange for liberty surfaced only when defense counsel asked Moner what happened at the Las Piñas Police Station. Defense counsel did not confront any prosecution witness with that accusation, and no criminal or administrative case was filed by Moner or any of his co-accused against the alleged extortionists. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, is viewed with disfavor because it can easily be concocted and is a common defense in dangerous drugs prosecutions. In such cases, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly unless there is evidence to the contrary. Moner failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to overturn that presumption. Absent proof of mishandling, tampering, or switching of evidence, the presumption remained.

• Chain of Custody Rule — The rule requires the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, safekeeping, presentation in court, and destruction. It ensures that the drug specimen offered in court is the same material seized from the accused. The Court applied the rule by examining whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu were preserved despite deviations from Section 21.
• Substantial Compliance and Saving Clause under Section 21 — Noncompliance with the physical inventory and photograph requirements does not render the seized drugs inadmissible or void if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The Court found justifiable grounds in the buy-bust team’s security risk and unfamiliarity with the area, and substantial compliance through marking and inventory at the police station in the presence of Moner and his co-accused.
• Presentation of Informant Not Indispensable — The informant need not be presented as a witness in a drug-dealing prosecution, as a rule, for security reasons; only when the informant’s testimony is absolutely essential should the need to protect his security be disregarded. The Court applied this because the poseur-buyer and other buy-bust team members testified.
• Minor Inconsistencies Do Not Destroy Credibility — Minor inconsistencies and contradictions in witnesses’ declarations do not destroy credibility; they may even enhance truthfulness by erasing suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. The Court applied this to reject Moner’s challenge to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies.
• Credibility Findings of Trial Court Accorded Great Weight — Where the issue is credibility of witnesses, the trial court’s findings are not to be disturbed unless certain facts of substance and value plainly overlooked might affect the result. The Court applied this because the trial court personally observed the witnesses and its findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
• Presumption of Regular Performance of Official Duties — Police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner unless evidence to the contrary. The Court applied this because Moner failed to prove mishandling, tampering, or switching of evidence.
• Denial and Frame-up Viewed with Disfavor — Denial or frame-up, like alibi, is viewed with disfavor as easily concocted and a common defense ploy in dangerous drugs prosecutions. The Court applied this because the extortion allegation was not substantiated and no case was filed.
• Chain of Custody as Procedural/Evidentiary Rule — The chain of custody rule is a matter of evidence and procedure, not substantive law; the Court has the last say regarding appreciation of evidence. Noncompliance affects the weight, not the admissibility, of the seized drugs. The Court applied this to uphold the conviction despite procedural lapses.

• "For a successful prosecution of an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or ·sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified." — The Court used this formulation to test the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence; it is the canonical statement of the elements of illegal sale under Republic Act No. 9165.
• "We have consistently ruled that noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 will not necessarily render the illegal drugs seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs have been preserved, i.e., the illegal drugs being offered in court as evidence is, without a specter of doubt, the very same item recovered in the buy-bust operation." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the effect of Section 21 noncompliance and the substantial-compliance standard.
• "To reiterate, noncompliance with the chain of custody rule is excusable as long as there exist justifiable grounds which prevented those tasked to follow the same from strictly conforming to the said directive." — The Court used this to excuse the failure to inventory and photograph at the scene because of security concerns.
• "The fact that the apprehending officer marked the plastic sachet at the police station, and not at the place of seizure, did not compromise the integrity of the seized item. Jurisprudence has declared that "marking upon immediate confiscation" contemplates even marking done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. Neither does the absence of a physical inventory nor the lack of photograph of the confiscated item renders the same inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as these would be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused." — Quoting Palo vs. People, this passage explains why marking at the police station and the absence of inventory or photograph did not invalidate the seizure.

• People vs. Lafaran, 771 Phil. 311, 326-327 (2015) — Cited to support the rule that the presentation of an informant is not indispensable to a drug-dealing prosecution, especially where the poseur-buyer and other buy-bust team members testify.
• Palo vs. People, 780 Phil. 681 (2016) — Quoted for the rule that marking at the police station rather than at the place of seizure does not compromise integrity, and absence of physical inventory or photograph does not render the seized item inadmissible; preservation of integrity and evidentiary value is paramount.
• People vs. Usman, 753 Phil. 200 (2015) — Cited for the principle that the chain of custody is not established solely by compliance with inventory and photograph requirements; preservation of integrity and evidentiary value is the most important factor.
• Zalameda vs. People, 614 Phil. 710, 741-742 (2009) — Cited for the rule that noncompliance with Section 21 affects the weight, not the admissibility, of the seized drugs.
• Saraum vs. People, 779 Phil. 122, 133 (2016) — Restated Zalameda; also cited for the definition of the chain of custody rule as requiring identification of persons who handled the confiscated items.
• Mallillin vs. People, 576 Phil. 576, 586-587 (2008) — Cited for the principle that the identity of the prohibited drug must be established beyond doubt and that the chain of custody rule authenticates the evidence.
• Ampatuan vs. People, 667 Phil. 747, 755 (2011) — Cited for the essential elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• People vs. Cunanan, 756 Phil. 40, 50 (2015) — Cited for the rule that noncompliance with Section 21 does not necessarily render the seized drugs inadmissible if integrity and evidentiary value are preserved.
• People vs. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855 (2015) — Cited for the rule that minor inconsistencies do not destroy witness credibility.
• People vs. Minanga, 751 Phil. 240, 249 (2015) — Cited for the rule that credence is given to police officers as prosecution witnesses absent evidence of irregular performance of duty.
• People vs. Ygot, G.R. No. 210715, July 18, 2016, 797 SCRA 87, 93 — Cited for the rule that denial or frame-up is viewed with disfavor.
• Bustos vs. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640, 649-652 (1948) — Cited to distinguish substantive law from procedural law and to explain that rules of evidence are procedural.
• United States vs. Ricco, 52 F.3d 58 (4th Cir. 1995) — Cited to show that the chain of custody is not an iron-clad requirement and a missing link does not prevent admission if evidence is what it purports to be.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Court applied it to affirm Moner’s conviction after finding the elements of sale established.
• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The Court noted Moner and his co-accused were acquitted of this charge for failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 — Requires the apprehending team to take custody of seized drugs and, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a media representative, a Department of Justice representative, and an elected public official who must sign copies. The Court held that noncompliance does not automatically render the drugs inadmissible where justifiable grounds exist and integrity is preserved.
• Section 21(a), Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 — Contains the saving clause: noncompliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds shall not render void and invalid the seizure and custody if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Court applied this to excuse the failure to inventory and photograph at the scene.
• Section 1(b), Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 — Defines “chain of custody” as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from seizure to forensic laboratory, safekeeping, court presentation, and destruction. The Court used this definition in analyzing the chain of custody.
• Article VIII, Section 5(5), 1987 Constitution — Vests the Supreme Court with power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, including rules of evidence. The Court cited this to explain that the chain of custody rule is a matter of evidence and procedure within its authority.
• Rule 128, Sections 1, 2, and 3; Rule 130, Section 1, Rules of Court — Define evidence, provide that rules of evidence are the same in all courts, state that evidence is admissible when relevant and not excluded by law or rules, and define object evidence. The Court used these to hold that noncompliance with Section 21 affects weight, not admissibility.

Mariano C. Del Castillo and Noel Gimenez Tijam concurred. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno was on leave; Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe indicated a dissenting opinion.