People vs. Dalisay

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 applies to all seizures of dangerous drugs, including those recovered during warrantless stop-and-frisk searches, not only those seized in buy-bust operations or pursuant to search warrants, and the prosecution's failure to establish even one link in the chain of custody — particularly the forensic chemist's receipt, handling, and submission of the seized specimen — mandates acquittal regardless of the validity of the underlying search and arrest.

Accused-appellant Edward Dalisay y Bagro, also known as alias "Edu/Puwit," had been under surveillance by the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (SAIDSOTF) of the PNP Batangas City Police Station since 2011, along with his brothers Edison and alias "Ulo," for suspected involvement in the illegal drug trade. Despite three years of monitoring, no warrant had been secured against him. On the evening of July 22, 2014, a confidential informant residing in Barangay Gulod Itaas tipped off PO2 Ponciano V. Asilo that the accused was at a corner leading to the elementary school in that barangay, carrying a gun. Two separate Informations were subsequently filed: one for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under R.A. No. 10591, and another for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165.

Edward Dalisay y Bagro, also known as alias "Edu/Puwit," had been under relentless surveillance by the SAIDSOTF of the PNP Batangas City Police Station since 2011 for his suspected involvement in the illegal drug trade, together with his brothers Edison and alias "Ulo." Despite three years of monitoring, the police had not secured a warrant against him. On July 22, 2014, at around 8:45 in the evening, PO2 Ponciano V. Asilo received a call from a confidential informant residing in Barangay Gulod Itaas, reporting that the accused was at a corner leading to the elementary school in that barangay, carrying a gun. PO2 Asilo relayed the information to PO3 Alexander Narvacan Olea and PO3 Jonas Manook Guarda, and together they planned the arrest. Before departing from the station, they recorded their intended operation with duty desk officer SPO2 Leur Libio and proceeded aboard a tinted unmarked vehicle.

Upon arriving at the corner leading to the elementary school, the police officers spotted the accused sitting on a parked black motorcycle, showing something to another man. As they approached, PO2 Asilo switched the headlights to bright and observed a gun glistening in the dark in the accused's hand. The officers immediately alighted and accosted him. PO2 Asilo confiscated the firearm — a homemade Black Widow Magnum caliber .22 revolver without a serial number, loaded with five live rounds of ammunition. When asked whether the gun was covered by a valid license, the accused could not present any documents. PO2 Asilo placed him under arrest and apprised him of his constitutional rights. In accordance with standard operating procedure, PO2 Asilo frisked the accused and found in his right pocket one transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. At the scene, PO2 Asilo marked the gun "PVA," the five live ammunitions "PVA 1" to "PVA 5," and the plastic sachet "PVA 07-22-14," while PO3 Olea took photographs. The accused identified himself, and the team transported him to the barangay hall of Brgy. Gulod Itaas, with PO2 Asilo keeping the evidence in his pocket during transit.

At the barangay hall, the arrest was recorded in the barangay blotter at around 9:45 p.m. SPO1 Pepito Reyes Adelantar prepared the Certificate of Inventory and conducted the inventory of evidence in the presence of the accused, DOJ representative Leonides Cueto, and Barangay Councilor Cueto, who signed the document. No media representative was present because, although the officers attempted to contact Lito Rendura, Boy Griño, and a representative from the City Hall, none were available. After the inventory, PO2 Asilo turned over the evidence to SPO1 Adelantar, who kept it in his custody en route to the police station. At the station, SPO1 Adelantar prepared letter-requests for laboratory examination and drug testing, then brought the requests, the accused, and the evidence to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. PSI Herminia Carandang Llacuna, a chemist, conducted a qualitative examination of the specimen, which yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. BD-495-2014 dated July 23, 2014. A Certification dated October 23, 2014 from the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office confirmed that the accused was not a licensed or registered firearm holder of any kind or caliber.

Accused-appellant denied the accusations. He recounted that on July 22, 2014, at around 7:00 p.m., he was buying candles from a store in Buklod-Unlad in Barangay Dumantay, Batangas City, when three armed men wearing white plastic masks aboard three motorcycles grabbed him and asked if he was "Joey." He showed his driver's license to prove otherwise, but the men insisted. Frightened, he asked his cousin to report the incident to his father; when his father arrived, the men told him not to interfere. The men forcibly boarded him inside a van and demanded ₱100,000 in exchange for his liberty. When he said he had no money, they threatened him. He was brought to a police station, shown the evidence against him, then taken to Barangay Gulod where his pictures were taken, and finally to the barangay hall of Barangay Gulod Itaas, where he told the barangay officials that the items were not his and that he had not been arrested there. Barangay Councilor Cueto wondered aloud why the barangay officials did not know about the arrest, but the police did not react.

• Fabrication of Gun Display: Accused-appellant contended before the CA that PO2 Asilo's claim — that he was openly brandishing an unlicensed firearm in a public space — was a sheer fabrication, arguing that it would be highly irregular for a holder of an unlicensed firearm to flaunt his possession so recklessly in public.
• Denial and Extortion: Accused-appellant denied all accusations, claiming he was forcibly seized by masked men, wrongly identified as "Joey," and extorted for ₱100,000 in exchange for his liberty, and that the seized items were not his and he was not even arrested at Barangay Gulod Itaas.

• Validity of Arrest and Search: Whether accused-appellant was validly arrested, and concomitant to that, whether there was a valid search against accused-appellant.
• Illegal Possession of Firearms: Whether the CA was correct in affirming accused-appellant's conviction in Criminal Case No. 19010 for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under Section 28(a) and (e), Article V in relation to Section 3(dd), subparagraph 1(ii), Article I of R.A. No. 10591.
• Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs: Whether the CA was correct in affirming accused-appellant's conviction in Criminal Case No. 19011 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

• Validity of Arrest and Search: Yes. The search was a valid stop-and-frisk encounter, as at least two suspicious circumstances were present: the informant's tip that the accused was carrying a firearm, and PO2 Asilo's personal observation of the accused displaying a nickel-colored metal object to a companion, compounded by the accused's three-year surveillance history.
• Illegal Possession of Firearms: Yes. The conviction was affirmed, the existence of the firearm having been established through PO2 Asilo's testimony and the firearm's presentation in court, and the lack of license having been substantiated by the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office Certification.
• Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs: No. The accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish the third and fourth links in the chain of custody — the evidence custodian's stipulated testimony did not confirm receipt of the specimen from the investigating officer, and the forensic chemist's stipulated testimony did not state from whom or in what condition she received the seized drugs.

• Validity of Arrest and Search: The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches admits of exceptions, including stop-and-frisk (Terry) searches. The test is whether a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his or her safety or that of others was in danger, drawing not from an unparticularized hunch but from specific reasonable inferences based on the officer's experience. Citing Telen vs. People and Manibog vs. People, the Court required that the arresting officer personally observe at least two or more suspicious circumstances, from which a reasonable inference of criminal activity may be deduced. Here, PO2 Asilo received information from an informant that the accused was carrying a firearm, and upon arriving at the location personally observed the accused displaying a nickel-colored metal object to a companion. The accused had also been under continuous surveillance for approximately three years. These circumstances created a reasonable inference of criminal activity, authorizing the stop-and-frisk. The firearm and ammunition seized were therefore admissible evidence.

• Illegal Possession of Firearms: A warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court requires that the person to be arrested execute an overt act indicating that he or she has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime, and that such overt act be done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Because the stop-and-frisk was valid and revealed an unregistered firearm, the arrest was lawful under Section 5(a). For illegal possession of firearms, the prosecution must prove: (1) the firearm exists, and (2) the accused had no corresponding license. PO2 Asilo's testimony confirmed the firearm's discovery and its turnover to SPO1 Adelantar; the defense stipulated to the firearm's custody and identifiability; and the firearm was presented and identified in court. The PNP Firearms and Explosives Office Certification dated October 23, 2014 established the accused was not a registered firearm holder. Under Section 28(a) and (e)(1) of R.A. No. 10591, the imposable penalty for possessing a small arm loaded with ammunition is prision mayor in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the CA correctly imposed an indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to eleven years and four months of prision mayor in its maximum period, as maximum.

• Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs: Although the search yielding the drugs was valid as incidental to a lawful arrest, the prosecution still bore the burden of proving an unbroken chain of custody. Citing Tumabini vs. People, the Court held that Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 applies to all seizures of drugs — whether by buy-bust, search warrant, or stop-and-frisk — because the statute's language does not distinguish among modes of seizure. The events occurred on July 22, 2014, so the pre-amendment version of Section 21 applied, requiring inventory and photography immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused and three witnesses: a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. While no media representative was present, the prosecution showed earnest efforts to contact one, rendering the non-compliance excusable under the IRR's saving mechanism. The first link (seizure and marking) was satisfied: PO2 Asilo marked the sachet "PVA 07-22-14" at the scene. The second link (turnover to investigating officer) was satisfied: PO2 Asilo turned over the items to SPO1 Adelantar. However, the third link (turnover to forensic chemist) was not established: SPO4 Agustin's stipulated testimony did not confirm receipt of the specimen from SPO1 Adelantar, and PSI Llacuna's stipulated testimony did not state from whom or in what condition she received the seized items. The fourth link (forensic chemist to court) was likewise not established: per People vs. Rivera, the forensic chemist must testify on when and from whom the drug was received, its condition, identifying labels, container, and method of analysis, or the parties must stipulate that the chemist received the article as marked, properly sealed, and intact, resealed it after examination, and placed her own marking. PSI Llacuna's stipulation lacked all of these details. The gaps in the stipulations could not be overlooked, compelling acquittal.

• Stop-and-Frisk Search (Terry Search) — The act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him or her, and pat him or her for weapons or contraband. The test of validity is whether a reasonably prudent person, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his or her safety or that of others was in danger. The arresting officer must personally observe at least two or more suspicious circumstances, from which a reasonable inference of criminal activity may be deduced to justify further investigation. In this case, the informant's tip and PO2 Asilo's personal observation of the accused displaying a nickel-colored metal object, combined with the accused's three-year surveillance history, constituted sufficient suspicious circumstances.

• Chain of Custody in Drug Cases (Four Links) — The prosecution must establish four critical links: (1) seizure and marking of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug by the forensic chemist to the court. Failure to establish even one link renders the chain broken and warrants acquittal. In this case, the third and fourth links were not established because the stipulated testimonies of the evidence custodian and the forensic chemist did not confirm receipt of the specimen in the condition marked or identify from whom it was received.

• Applicability of Section 21, R.A. No. 9165 to All Drug Seizures — Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 applies to all seizures and confiscations of dangerous drugs, whether effected through a buy-bust operation, a search warrant, or a warrantless stop-and-frisk search. The statute does not distinguish among modes of seizure; under the plain-meaning rule (verba legis), it operates whenever there is seizure and confiscation of drugs. Exempting stop-and-frisk seizures would create a loophole for corrupt officers to alter narratives. In this case, the Court explicitly extended the Section 21 requirement to drugs recovered during a valid stop-and-frisk search.

• Forensic Chemist Testimony Requirements — The forensic chemist must testify on the details of handling and analysis: when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen and its container; and the name and method of analysis used. In the absence of such testimony, the parties must stipulate that: (a) the chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (b) she resealed it after examination; and (c) she placed her own marking to ensure it could not be tampered with pending trial. Absent such stipulations, the fourth link cannot be established, resulting in acquittal.

• Elements of Illegal Possession of Firearms — The prosecution must prove: (1) the firearm subject of the offense exists; and (2) the accused who possessed or owned it had no corresponding license or permit. The corpus delicti lies not in the act of possession but in the accused's lack of license or permit. In this case, the firearm's existence was established through PO2 Asilo's testimony and its presentation in court, and the license deficiency was substantiated by the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office Certification.

• "Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 applies whether the drugs were seized either in a buy-bust operation or pursuant to a search warrant." — This passage, quoted from Tumabini vs. People, articulates the principle that the chain-of-custody requirements under Section 21 are universal and not limited to particular modes of seizure, which the Court extended in this decision to cover stop-and-frisk searches.

• "A plain reading of the law shows that it applies as long as there has been a seizure and confiscation of drugs. There is nothing in the statutory provision which states that it is only applicable when there is a warrantless seizure in a buy-bust operation." — This passage applies the plain-meaning rule (verba legis) to Section 21, establishing that the statutory text does not distinguish among seizure contexts and must therefore be applied uniformly.

• "if the Court were to exempt the application of Section 21 to drugs recovered from a frisk, it could provide a loophole for corrupt law enforcement officers to alter narratives from those of buy-bust operations to those of stop-and-frisk procedures." — This passage states the policy rationale for universal application of Section 21, grounding the rule in the constitutional presumption of innocence and the need to prevent abuse by law enforcement.

• "Without confirmation as to how and from whom the drug item was received by PSI Llacuna, the prosecution was not able to establish the fourth link." — This passage identifies the decisive factual gap that compelled acquittal on the drug charge, illustrating the strict evidentiary burden the prosecution must discharge at each link in the chain of custody.

• Telen vs. People, G.R. No. 228107, October 9, 2019, 923 SCRA 108 — Followed for the principle that a valid stop-and-frisk search requires the arresting officer to personally observe at least two or more suspicious circumstances, from which a reasonable inference of criminal activity may be drawn.
• Manibog vs. People — Cited within Telen for the two-or-more-suspicious-circumstances test governing the validity of stop-and-frisk searches.
• Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) — Originating authority for the stop-and-frisk doctrine, cited for the standard that a reasonably prudent person must be warranted in believing that his or her safety or that of others was in danger.
• Tumabini vs. People, 871 Phil. 289 (2020) — Controlling precedent for the holding that Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 applies to all drug seizures regardless of the mode of seizure, including warrantless stop-and-frisk searches.
• Nisperos vs. People, G.R. No. 250927, November 29, 2022 — Followed for the detailed guidelines on marking (immediately upon confiscation, at the place of confiscation, in the presence of the offender) and inventory (immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused and the required insulating witnesses), as well as the requirement that any deviation must be acknowledged and justified.
• People vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 252886, March 15, 2021 — Controlling precedent for the forensic chemist testimony requirements, including the mandatory stipulation elements when the chemist does not testify in person; the absence of these stipulations was the basis for finding the fourth link unestablished.
• Dominguez vs. People, 849 Phil. 610 (2019) — Cited for the enumeration of exceptions to the constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures.
• People vs. Cogaed — Cited within Telen for the principle that stop-and-frisk searches must be balanced with the citizen's right to privacy under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

• Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures; cited as the constitutional backdrop against which the exceptions to warrantless searches, including stop-and-frisk, are evaluated.
• Section 5(a), Rule 113, Rules of Court — Authorizes a warrantless arrest when, in the arresting officer's presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; applied to sustain the arrest of accused-appellant, who was caught in flagrante delicto possessing an unregistered firearm.
• Section 21, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 (pre-amendment by R.A. No. 10640) — Requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct physical inventory and photograph seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official; applied because the seizure occurred on July 22, 2014, before the effectivity of R.A. No. 10640 on August 7, 2014.
• Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Penalizes illegal possession of dangerous drugs; the accused was charged under this provision but acquitted due to broken chain of custody.
• Section 28(a) and (e)(1), Article V, R.A. No. 10591 — Penalizes unlawful possession of a small arm with prision mayor in its medium period, elevated by one degree when the firearm is loaded with ammunition; applied to impose prision mayor in its maximum period, with the indeterminate sentence computed under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended) — Applied to fix the minimum period of the penalty at the penalty next lower in degree (prision mayor in its medium period) and the maximum period within the medium range of prision mayor in its maximum period.

Inting, Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred. No separate concurring opinions were written.