People of the Philippines vs. William Calleja y Caganda

Where the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of custody and offers no justifiable explanation for non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165—including the presence of the three required witnesses at the time of the warrantless arrest and the forensic chemist's testimony on handling—the corpus delicti is not proven beyond reasonable doubt and the accused must be acquitted.

William Calleja y Caganda was charged by the People of the Philippines with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165. The charges arose from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Sipocot police, a law-enforcement method used to apprehend persons suspected of drug-related activities. Because the incidents occurred in 2011, the case is governed by Section 21 of R.A. 9165 prior to its amendment by R.A. 10640 in 2014, which prescribed the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs.

On June 30, 2011, around 7:30 in the evening, at Fabricante St., South Centro, Sipocot, Camarines Sur, police conducted a buy-bust operation against William Calleja y Caganda, who had been under surveillance since December 2010 for suspected drug-related activities. Two Informations were filed before the RTC: Criminal Case No. L-4973 charged illegal sale of two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing more or less 0.019 gram and 0.027 gram for P1,000; Criminal Case No. L-4974 charged illegal possession of four sachets weighing 0.024 gram, 0.010 gram, 0.010 gram, and 0.033 gram. The RTC consolidated the cases, and Calleja pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.

According to the prosecution, SPO2 Albert A. Joven testified that Calleja had been under police surveillance since December 2010 and that on June 30, 2011, a buy-bust operation was conducted with a team of three groups. PO1 Joni Opello Abala and PO2 Marrion B. Serdon, together with an asset, acted as poseur-buyers, while the rest hid about 20 meters away. PO1 Abala and PO2 Serdon, with the police asset, waited near the municipality's basketball court. When Calleja arrived, the asset introduced PO1 Abala and PO2 Serdon as carnival employees interested in buying shabu. PO1 Abala handed over the pre-marked money; Calleja counted it and placed it in his wallet, then took out two sachets and gave them to PO1 Abala. Upon completion of the transaction, PO1 Abala shouted "positive na," the pre-arranged signal, and the team rushed to the scene. Calleja was apprehended despite resistance, and SPO2 Joven handcuffed him while reading his rights. A body search yielded a black wallet with four sachets containing shabu and the pre-marked money. SPO2 Joven recorded the inventory, and Calleja, Barangay Kagawad Evelyn Mancera, Barangay Kagawad Ariel de Leon, and media practitioner Jose Vivar affixed their signatures. PCI Noel Aquino requested laboratory examination, and SPO2 Joven personally delivered the six sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Naga City, where they were received by PO1 Dela Cruz.

PO1 Abala confirmed the buy-bust operation and his designation as poseur-buyer, stating that a pre-operation meeting was conducted around 6 o'clock in the evening before the team proceeded to Fabricante St. He testified that the inventory was conducted in the nearby stage area with light, about 10 meters from the place of arrest. PO2 Serdon likewise confirmed the operation and the pre-arranged signal. The testimony of PSI Jun Malong was dispensed with after both parties stipulated that he was an expert on forensic chemistry, that he conducted the initial laboratory examination, and that the specimen submitted to him yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The testimonies of Evelyn Mancera and Ariel de Leon were similarly dispensed with, as the parties admitted that both witnesses were present during the inventory of the seized items and that they signed the receipt of property seized and inventory prepared by SPO2 Joven. SPO2 Joven admitted that before the operation the witnesses were already with them, but during the operation they were not present; they were at the Kababayan Center, a police outpost in Poblacion. PO2 Serdon testified that after the arrest and body search, the kagawad and media representative arrived as witnesses to the marking of the recovered items.

Calleja, as the lone witness for the defense, offered a different version. He claimed that at the time of the alleged buy-bust operation on June 30, 2011, at 7:30 in the evening, he was at home in Triangulo, Sipocot, Camarines Sur, with his mother and two siblings watching television. He then went out to play basketball at the plaza. While playing, he was approached by two police officers and another person and was suddenly arrested. He was constrained to remain in the plaza until SPO2 Joven arrived with a small table, on top of which were a black wallet and six sachets of shabu. After the items on the table were photographed, Calleja was brought to the police station despite his protestations.

The RTC found that the prosecution established the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession, that the police were justified in monitoring Calleja's activities, and that the mandatory witnesses were around during the inventory immediately following the arrest. The CA found that all elements of the crimes were present, that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs were not compromised, and that the prosecution witnesses testified on every link in the chain of custody. The CA also held that the inconsistencies cited by Calleja—the duration of the pre-operation meeting, the time the team waited for Calleja, and the person who conducted the inventory—were insignificant and did not impair the witnesses' credibility.

• Inconsistencies in Prosecution Testimony: Calleja argued that the prosecution witnesses' testimonies contained inconsistencies, specifically on the duration of the pre-operation meeting, the time the team waited for him, and the person who conducted the inventory of the seized items.
• Denial and Frame-Up: Calleja maintained that he was at home and later playing basketball when he was suddenly arrested, and that the charges were a frame-up; he argued that this defense should be appreciated.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant William Calleja y Caganda's guilt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.
• Chain of Custody and Section 21 Compliance: Whether the prosecution proved an unbroken chain of custody and compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, including the required third-party witnesses and the forensic chemist's testimony, such that the corpus delicti was established beyond reasonable doubt.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: No. The prosecution failed to establish Calleja's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the conviction was reversed and set aside because the corpus delicti was not proven with moral certainty.
• Chain of Custody and Section 21 Compliance: No. The buy-bust team failed to comply with Section 21's three-witness requirement, did not secure the witnesses at the time of the warrantless arrest, and failed to prove the fourth link in the chain of custody through the forensic chemist; no justifiable grounds were shown.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: In all criminal cases, the presumption of innocence of an accused as a fundamental constitutional guarantee must be upheld at all times, and the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution. Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that every fact necessary to constitute the crime be established, requiring moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. For illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. For illegal possession under Section 11, the elements are: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. However, in all prosecutions for violations of R.A. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself, and its existence is essential to a judgment of conviction; the identity of the dangerous drug must be clearly established. Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable and are highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or contamination, so the chain of custody as a method of authentication ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of seized drugs are removed. The prosecution cannot prove its case for violation of Sections 5 and 11 when the seized items cannot be accounted for or when there are significant lapses in their chain of custody, resulting in doubt as to whether the items presented before the RTC were actually those seized at the time of arrest. Because the buy-bust operation was attended by major procedural defects and the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody, reasonable doubt remained on Calleja's guilt.

• Chain of Custody and Section 21 Compliance: Section 21 of R.A. 9165, prior to its amendment by R.A. 10640 in 2014, governed the seizure, custody, handling, and disposition of confiscated illegal drugs. It required 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 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 IRR added a saving clause: non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items, so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, the saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds; the prosecution must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved, and the police officers must show they intended to comply with the procedure but were thwarted by some justifiable consideration or reason. Here, the Court found major deviations. First, the rule requiring three required witnesses—a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected official—was not complied with; only two barangay officials and a media representative were present, and there was no showing of earnest efforts to secure the required witnesses or any explanation for the failure. Second, the required witnesses were not present at the time Calleja was apprehended; they were at the Kababayan Center or police outpost and were called only after the apprehension and after SPO2 Joven had secured possession of the sachets. Their presence only during the subsequent physical inventory and photographing rendered the requirement futile, as they had no personal knowledge of the supposed sale, apprehension, search, and seizure; they were reduced to passive automatons or rubberstamps. Third, the fourth link in the chain of custody—the turnover and submission of the dangerous drug from the forensic chemist to the court—was incipiently broken. The testimony of PSI Malong was dispensed with, but the stipulation only covered his findings on the drug sample submitted by PO2 Joven; he did not discuss how he handled the dangerous drug from the time it was received until it was presented in court, and the initial laboratory report did not bear a description of the method utilized in analyzing the chemical composition of the drug sample. The prosecution never proved or pleaded any justifiable ground accounting for the buy-bust team's deviation from the prescribed procedure. Given these unexplained major procedural lapses, the Court was compelled to acquit Calleja for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof — In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution. A guilty verdict relies on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. The Court applied this guarantee by holding that the prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody and to explain major procedural lapses left reasonable doubt on Calleja's guilt, requiring acquittal.

• Corpus Delicti in Dangerous Drugs Cases — In all prosecutions for violations of R.A. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. Its existence is essential to a judgment of conviction, and the identity of the dangerous drug must be clearly established. Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable and are highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or contamination, so the drugs allegedly seized from the accused must be the very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence. The Court found that the procedural lapses cast doubt on whether the items presented before the RTC were actually those seized at the time of arrest.

• Chain of Custody Rule — Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment at each stage, from seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. The links that must be established are: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turn-over of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turn-over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turn-over and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. The Court found the fourth link broken because the forensic chemist did not testify on how he handled the dangerous drug from receipt until presentation in court.

• Section 21 Three-Witness Requirement — Under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 prior to its amendment by R.A. 10640, 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. The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest, because their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. The Court found that only two barangay officials and a media representative were present, no DOJ representative was shown, and the witnesses were not present at the apprehension but were called only after the operation.

• Saving Clause under the IRR of R.A. 9165 — Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 under justifiable grounds will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items, so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team. However, the saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds; the prosecution must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved, and the police officers must show they intended to comply with the procedure but were thwarted by some justifiable consideration or reason. The Court found no such explanation or earnest effort in this case.

• Forensic Chemist Testimony — In drug-related cases, it is of paramount importance that the chemist testify on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination: when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; the container it was in; and the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimen. The Court found the stipulation of PSI Malong's testimony inadequate because it only covered his findings on the drug sample submitted by PO2 Joven and did not discuss how he handled the dangerous drug from receipt until presentation in court.

• "In all prosecutions for violations of R.A. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. Its existence is essential to a judgment of conviction. Hence, the identity of the dangerous drug must be clearly established." — This passage states the foundational rule that the dangerous drug itself is the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases and that its identity must be clearly established, which the Court used to frame the need for an unbroken chain of custody.

• "The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug." — This passage defines the timing requirement for the three third-party witnesses under Section 21, which the Court applied to find that the witnesses in this case were improperly absent during the apprehension.

• "[h]aving their presence only at the very late stage reduces them to passive automatons, utilized merely to lend hollow legitimacy by belatedly affixing signatures on final inventory documents despite lacking authentic knowledge on the items confronting them. They are then reduced to rubberstamps, oblivious as to how the dangers sought to be avoided by their presence may have already transpired." — This passage explains why belated witness presence during inventory does not satisfy Section 21, a key rationale for rejecting the prosecution's compliance claim.

• "In fine, the prosecution never bothered to prove, let alone pled, any justifiable ground accounting for the buy-bust team's deviation from the prescribed procedure. Given the unexplained major procedural lapses that manifestly cast doubt on the substantiation of the elements of illegal drug sale and possession under Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165, the Court is compelled to acquit Calleja for the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence in favor of Calleja stands." — This passage is the Court's ratio decidendi, tying the absence of justifiable grounds and the unexplained procedural lapses to the acquittal.

• People vs. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582 (2017) — Cited for the rule that in all prosecutions for violations of R.A. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself and its identity must be clearly established.
• People vs. Moner, 827 Phil. 42 (2018) — Cited for the Dangerous Drugs Board definition of chain of custody under Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.
• Mallillin vs. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) — Cited for the rule that chain of custody as a method of authenticating evidence requires testimony about each link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it was offered into evidence.
• People vs. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67 (2018) — Cited for the enumeration of the four links that must be established in the chain of custody.
• People vs. Otico, 832 Phil. 992 (2018) — Cited for the IRR's saving clause and allowable deviations from the strict requirements of Section 21 under justifiable grounds.
• People vs. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018 — Cited for the acquittal of an accused where the three required witnesses were absent and the prosecution failed to demonstrate earnest efforts to secure their attendance.
• People vs. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385 (2018) — Cited for the rule that the presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during inventory but at the time of the warrantless arrest.
• People vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019 — Cited for the rule that having third-party witnesses present only at a very late stage reduces them to passive automatons and rubberstamps.
• People vs. Dahil, et al., 750 Phil. 212 (2015) — Cited for the acquittal of an accused where the forensic chemist did not testify on how she handled the dangerous drug submitted for examination.
• People vs. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21 (2017) — Cited for the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165.

• Section 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. The Court applied this guarantee by requiring the prosecution to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt and by acquitting Calleja when it failed to do so.
• Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 — Punishes the illegal sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs. The Court recited its elements but found the conviction could not stand because the corpus delicti and chain of custody were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165 — Punishes illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The Court recited its elements but found the conviction could not stand because the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody and the identity of the seized drugs beyond reasonable doubt.
• Section 21, Article II, R.A. 9165 (pre-R.A. 10640) — Required the apprehending team to 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. The Court applied this provision because the incidents occurred in 2011 and found major deviations from its requirements.
• Section 21(a), Article II, IRR of R.A. 9165 — Added a saving clause allowing non-compliance with Section 21 under justifiable grounds if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Court held that the saving clause did not apply because the prosecution neither recognized nor explained any justifiable ground for the procedural lapses.
• DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, Section 1(b) — Defines chain of custody as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs at each stage, from seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. The Court used this definition to assess the required links in the chain of custody.
• R.A. 10640 — Amended Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The Court noted that because the incidents occurred in 2011, the old law, not the amendment, applied.

Justice Leonen (Chairperson), Justice Inting, and Justice Delos Santos concurred. Justice Hernando was on leave.