People vs. Uy

The mandatory requirements of Section 21, R.A. No. 9165 — physical inventory, photography, and the presence of three insulating witnesses — must be strictly complied with regardless of the quantity of dangerous drugs seized, and noncompliance may only be excused upon proof of both justifiable reasons and preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The large quantity of drugs involved does not diminish the obligatory nature of proving the corpus delicti, as the law makes no distinction between large and small amounts in applying procedural safeguards. Constructive possession over drugs found in a warehouse requires proof of dominion and control over the premises, which cannot be presumed merely from the accused's prior presence at or access to the warehouse.

The case arose from two related anti-drug operations conducted by the PNP Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AID-SOTF) in Valenzuela City on November 10 and 11, 2003. The operations originated from a joint AID-SOTF and Bureau of Immigration mission order targeting a certain Jackie Ong, a Chinese national suspected of involvement in illegal drugs, who was found at a Binondo apartment with three other undocumented Chinese nationals. When informed of their impending deportation, two of the Chinese nationals allegedly offered 10 kilograms of shabu in exchange for their freedom, which set in motion the events leading to accused-appellant's arrest and the subsequent search of a warehouse in Mapulang Lupa, Valenzuela City. Accused-appellant Robert Uy y Ting, a Filipino businessman, was charged alongside five Chinese nationals — Jackie Ong, Co Ching Ki, Tan Ty Siao, Go Siak Ping, and Willie Gan — in two criminal cases for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

On November 10, 2003, a joint team from the PNP AID-SOTF and the Bureau of Immigration, led by PSI Rainerio De Chavez and Supt. Winnie Quidato, implemented a mission order against Jackie Ong at Room 402, Oro Building, Sanchez Street, Binondo, Manila. Upon entry with the assistance of a Chinese interpreter, the team found Jackie Ong and three other Chinese nationals who could not produce proper immigration documents. The four were brought to Camp Crame for investigation. When informed they would be deported, Co Ching Ki and Jackie Ong, through an interpreter, offered ten kilograms of shabu in exchange for their freedom. PSI De Chavez reported the offer to his superior, Supt. Federico Lasiste, and gave his mobile phone to Co Ching Ki, who after several calls stated that the drugs were ready for pick-up and that a vehicle was needed for delivery. PSI Melchor Cantil offered his Mitsubishi Lancer, and the team proceeded to a McDonald's along McArthur Highway as the designated pick-up area, parking the car there before withdrawing.

According to the prosecution, a man boarded the car and drove it to a warehouse in Mapulang Lupa, Valenzuela City. The team followed, waited for the car to exit, and when it returned to the pick-up area, PSI De Chavez saw a box inside. PO1 Richel Creer retrieved the box, which contained five plastic bags of white crystalline substance. The driver was arrested and identified as Robert Uy. The team then secured the warehouse and brought Uy to Camp Crame. The substance later tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, weighing approximately 10 kilograms. The next day, November 11, 2003, the team served a search warrant at the warehouse at No. 6011 Benito Jao Street, Mapulang Lupa, in the presence of barangay officials, media reporters, and SOCO operatives. The search yielded 119.080 kilograms of shabu and 111.200 kilograms of chloromethamphetamine hydrochloride. SPO2 Severino Busa, designated as seizing officer, prepared an Inventory Receipt and Certificate of Orderly Search, and the evidence was turned over to SOCO.

For his part, accused-appellant testified that he was a businessman owning RFT Enterprises, a hardware and construction supply store in Caloocan City. He had met Willie Gan in 1999 through Gan's uncle and was later hired as Gan's part-time driver for ₱30,000 per month. In January 2003, Gan asked him to find a warehouse in Valenzuela City, and he located one owned by Rogelio Samorano, which Gan leased for ₱130,000 monthly. Uy stated that after repairs were completed in May 2003, he noticed a container van delivering furniture and drums labeled "Bleaching Powder." He claimed that from October 2003 to November 9, 2003, Gan did not contact him. On November 10, 2003, around 6:00 p.m., Gan called and instructed him to meet at McDonald's along McArthur Highway, where he was told to drive a red Mitsubishi Lancer — with keys already in the ignition — to the warehouse. Uy testified that upon arriving at the warehouse, Gan was already at the gate with a box, which Gan placed in the backseat. Before reaching the Mercury Drug store, Gan alighted and told Uy to park the car there. Upon parking, several police officers immediately accosted him. He was brought to the warehouse, then to Camp Crame, where the box was opened in his presence. He met the four Chinese nationals for the first time that night.

The RTC found Uy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both charges, holding that he was caught in flagrante delicto transporting and delivering the 10 kilograms of shabu, and that his access to the warehouse demonstrated knowledge of its contents, establishing constructive possession. The RTC also convicted Willie Gan of illegal possession as the warehouse lessee but acquitted him of the transportation charge. The CA affirmed with modification, increasing the penalty for the possession charge to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱10,000,000, rejecting Uy's defense of instigation and lack of knowledge, and finding the chain of custody unbroken.

• Instigation: Accused-appellant contended that he was instigated into committing the crime by the four Chinese nationals, Willie Gan, and the PNP AID-SOTF, emphasizing that the car used in the delivery was supplied by the police officers, thereby facilitating and ensuring the transport of the drugs. He insisted he had no participation in the offense and that the criminal design originated from the minds of State agents rather than his own.
• Illegal Arrest and Search: Accused-appellant argued that because he was a victim of instigation, his arrest was illegal, rendering the concomitant search and seizure likewise illegal and inadmissible as fruits of the poisonous tree. He contended that mere tips and reliable information are insufficient to justify a warrantless arrest without some overt act, and that the box was opaque so the seized items were not in plain view. He further argued that the evidence from the November 11, 2003 operation was also inadmissible since it was derived from information gathered after his illegal arrest.
• Lack of Elements for Section 5: Accused-appellant insisted that not all elements of violation of Section 5 were present because no sale occurred and therefore no delivery transpired. He claimed he never knew the contents of the box, as it was Willie Gan who placed it in the vehicle.
• Lack of Elements for Section 11: Accused-appellant pointed out that he was already in custody when the search warrant was served at the warehouse, making actual possession impossible. He also denied constructive possession, stating that while he helped Gan secure the lease, he had no idea the warehouse would be used for illicit purposes. He noted that the operatives failed to ask him to sign the Inventory Receipt.
• No Conspiracy: Accused-appellant argued that conspiracy was not established, as the mere fact of being Gan's friend and driver was insufficient to give rise to a presumption of conspiracy, and he lacked intimate knowledge of Gan's business dealings.
• Noncompliance with Section 21: Accused-appellant highlighted the police officers' failure to take photographs of the 10 kilograms of shabu seized on November 10, 2003, the absence of representatives from the DOJ, the media, and any elected public official, and the lack of any record detailing the participation of required witnesses during the seizure, marking, and inventory. He also noted that seized items were not immediately inventoried at the nearest police station but brought all the way to Camp Crame.
• Broken Chain of Custody: Accused-appellant asserted that the prosecution failed to establish every link in the chain of custody, rendering the identity of the corpus delicti questionable. He pointed out that PO1 Creer, who first touched and opened the box and delivered the items to the PNP Crime Laboratory, was never presented as a witness, nor was Insp. Abapo, the evidence custodian. For the November 11 operation, PO2 Ursita and PO3 Garciten were likewise not presented.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The OSG argued that accused-appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, as he admitted delivering or transporting the box containing five bags of shabu totaling 10 kilograms and was caught in flagrante delicto. The OSG characterized his defense of lack of knowledge as self-serving and pointed to his alleged admission to PSI De Chavez that there were many illegal substances inside the warehouse.
• Unbroken Chain of Custody: The OSG contended that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody from the time the team recovered the five plastic bags from accused-appellant and the drugs from the warehouse until they were brought for laboratory examination, and that accused-appellant failed to demonstrate any compelling reason to disturb the trial court's credibility findings.
• No Instigation: The OSG rejected the claim of instigation, asserting that the police officers did not know accused-appellant prior to the incident and that he facilitated, delivered, or transported the drugs on his own volition without any instigation or participation by the police.
• Valid Warrantless Arrest: The OSG maintained that the arrest and consequent search were valid because accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto committing the offense of delivery or transportation of illegal drugs, making the seized drugs admissible in evidence.
• Correct Penalty: The OSG asserted that the RTC erred in imposing only 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months and a fine of ₱300,000 for violation of Section 11, arguing that since the drugs recovered exceeded the 50-gram threshold, life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000 should have been imposed.

• Possession under Section 11: Whether the prosecution established that accused-appellant had actual or constructive possession of the drugs seized from the warehouse on November 11, 2003.
• Corpus Delicti and Section 21 Compliance: Whether the prosecution established the corpus delicti of the seized items from both the November 10 and November 11, 2003 operations through strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21, R.A. No. 9165.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized items from both operations.
• Effect of Acquittal on Non-Appealing Co-Accused: Whether the acquittal of accused-appellant should be extended to Willie Gan, who did not appeal his conviction.

• Possession under Section 11: No. The prosecution failed to prove that accused-appellant had possession, whether actual or constructive, over the items seized from the warehouse or over the warehouse itself, as required for a conviction under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
• Corpus Delicti and Section 21 Compliance: No. The apprehending officers completely failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 — physical inventory, photography, and the presence of three insulating witnesses — and no justifiable ground was proven to excuse such noncompliance, thus the corpus delicti was not established.
• Chain of Custody: No. Material gaps existed in all four links of the chain of custody for the seized items from both operations, as key witnesses — including the seizing officer, investigating officer, and evidence custodians — were never presented in court.
• Effect of Acquittal on Non-Appealing Co-Accused: Yes. The acquittal was extended to Willie Gan pursuant to Section 11, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as the defects in the chain of custody were equally applicable and favorable to him.

• Possession under Section 11: The elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. Possession includes both actual possession — where the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused — and constructive possession — where the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or where he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. Accused-appellant could not have had actual possession because he was already in police custody when the warehouse search was conducted on November 11, 2003. Neither was constructive possession established: the warehouse was leased to Willie Gan, as the prosecution's own witness Rogelio Samorano testified, and Samorano never stated that accused-appellant was a co-lessee. The CA's ascription of knowledge to accused-appellant based on his having driven to the warehouse cannot equate to constructive possession, because knowledge may only be presumed from the fact that drugs are found in a place over which the accused has control or dominion — a vital element missing here.

• Corpus Delicti and Section 21 Compliance: The dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation, and the State does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving corpus delicti when substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires that the apprehending team physically inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused and three insulating witnesses — a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official. Since the incidents occurred in November 2003, the three-witness requirement under the original R.A. No. 9165 applied, not the amended two-witness rule under R.A. No. 10640. For the November 10 operation, there was no inventory receipt, no evidence that the three required witnesses were present during marking, and it was unclear when or where the items were marked or photographed. For the November 11 operation, a DOJ representative was glaringly absent, no inventory receipt was submitted in evidence, and the photographs taken were merely of the warehouse exterior and operatives — not of the seized items as required. The Court rejected the prosecution's justification of urgency for the November 10 operation, noting that the police officers held all the advantage and could have secured the witnesses while preparing the pick-up. No excuse was even offered for the absence of the DOJ representative on November 11. Noncompliance may only be excused upon proof of both justifiable reasons and preservation of integrity and evidentiary value — requirements that are cumulative, not alternative — and neither was met. The Court emphasized that the large quantity of drugs involved did not diminish the obligatory nature of Section 21 compliance, as the law makes no distinction between large and small amounts.

• Chain of Custody: The four links in the chain of custody are: (1) seizure and marking of the illegal drug 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 of the marked drug from the forensic chemist to the court. For the first link, PO1 Creer was the seizing officer for the November 10 operation but PSI De Chavez was the one who marked the items, with no testimony on how possession was transferred or how the items were preserved; PO1 Creer was never presented as a witness. For the November 11 operation, there was no evidence that the seized items were even marked, and SPO2 Busa failed to testify on how he preserved the items before turning them over to PO2 Ursita. For the second link, the investigating officer was never identified for either operation. For the third link, PO1 Creer — who allegedly delivered the November 10 items to the crime laboratory — and PO2 Ursita — who received the November 11 items — were both not presented. For the fourth link, the evidence custodians Insp. Abapo and PO3 Garciten were identified but never testified. All four links contained material gaps, making it impossible to conclude that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

• Effect of Acquittal on Non-Appealing Co-Accused: An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review of all its aspects, including those not raised by the parties. Under Section 11, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judgment shall not affect a non-appealing accused unless it is applicable and favorable to him. The serious defects in the chain of custody for the November 11 operation were equally applicable to accused-appellant and Willie Gan, as the evidence against them was inexplicably linked. The acquittal was therefore favorable and applicable to Willie Gan, notwithstanding his failure to appeal.

• Corpus Delicti in Drug Cases — The dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law prohibiting its possession. The State fails to prove the corpus delicti when substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody of the seized drugs, raising doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented. The obligatory quality of proving the corpus delicti is not diminished when large or substantial amounts of dangerous drugs are involved, because R.A. No. 9165 makes no distinction between large and small amounts in applying the procedural safeguards of Section 21. Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish.

• Section 21 Compliance — Three Insulating Witnesses — Under the original R.A. No. 9165 (prior to amendment by R.A. No. 10640), the apprehending team must, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative/counsel, a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official, who shall sign and receive copies of the inventory. Noncompliance may be excused only upon proof of both: (1) justifiable reasons for the failure; and (2) preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. These requirements are cumulative, not alternative. The prosecution must allege and prove the presence of a justifiable ground and then prove that the integrity and evidentiary value were preserved. Earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the required witnesses must be demonstrated; mere statements of unavailability without actual serious attempts to contact them are unacceptable.

• Constructive Possession of Dangerous Drugs — Constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. Knowledge of the existence and character of the drugs may only be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drugs are found in a place over which the accused has control or dominion. Mere access to or prior presence at the location, without dominion and control, does not establish constructive possession.

• Chain of Custody — Four Links — The links to be established are: (1) seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover of the illegal 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 from the forensic chemist to the court. Marking is crucial because it distinguishes the evidence from all other related evidence, preventing switching, planting, or contamination.

• Effect of Appeal on Non-Appealing Co-Accused — An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review of all its aspects, including those not raised by the parties. Under Section 11, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judgment shall not affect a non-appealing accused unless it is applicable and favorable to the latter. An acquittal based on reasonable doubt that is equally applicable to a non-appealing co-accused must be extended to that co-accused.

• "The seizure of a significant or large amount of dangerous drugs does not detract from the obligatory nature of proving the corpus delicti, operationalized through strict compliance with the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165." — This is the ratio decidendi's foundational proposition, establishing that the quantity of drugs seized does not relax the procedural safeguards required for conviction.

• "The obligatory quality of proving the corpus delicti cannot be gainsaid and this obligatory quality is not diminished or affected when large or substantial amounts of dangerous drugs are involved. This is because the law itself, R.A. No. 9165, as amended, makes no distinction between large or small amounts of seized drugs in applying the procedural safeguards in Sec. 21. As the familiar legal maxim goes, where the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish." — This passage articulates the Court's rejection of a quantity-based sliding scale for Section 21 compliance, directly distinguishing People vs. Lung Wai Tang which applied the old drugs law.

• "The purported knowledge ascribed to accused-appellant by the CA cannot, and does not, equate to constructive possession." — This statement defines the boundary between knowledge and constructive possession, clarifying that dominion and control over the place where drugs are found is the indispensable element, not mere knowledge or access.

• "Truly, the acquittal in the instant case is ordained by the multiple errors, whether through negligence or misfeasance, committed by the prosecution, the defense, and the trial court." — This concluding observation underscores the Court's framing of the acquittal as a systemic failure across all actors in the criminal justice system, not merely a technicality.

• People vs. Quijano, G.R. No. 247558, February 19, 2020 — Followed for the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and the definition of actual and constructive possession.
• People vs. Lung Wai Tang, G.R. No. 238517, November 27, 2019 — Discussed and distinguished. The Court noted that Lung Wai Tang suggested giving strong probative value to large quantities of seized drugs, but distinguished it on the ground that it applied the old drugs law (R.A. No. 6425), whereas the present case involves R.A. No. 9165, which makes no distinction between large and small amounts for Section 21 compliance.
• People vs. Bautista, 682 Phil. 487 (2012) — Followed for the doctrine that the dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti and that the State bears the burden of proving it, with substantial gaps in the chain of custody raising doubts on the authenticity of evidence.
• People vs. Baterina, G.R. No. 236259, September 16, 2020 — Cited as a contrasting example where the Court convicted the accused because strict compliance with Section 21 was demonstrated despite the large quantity (48,565.683 grams of marijuana) involved.
• People vs. Lim, 839 Phil. 598 (2018) — Followed for the guidelines on justifiable reasons for noncompliance with Section 21, the requirement of earnest efforts to secure witnesses, and the mandatory policy directing investigating fiscals not to immediately file cases where no justification for noncompliance is stated in sworn statements.
• People vs. Salvador, 726 Phil. 389 (2014) — Followed for the enumeration of the four links in the chain of custody.
• People vs. Casa, G.R. No. 254208, August 16, 2022 — Followed for the rule that the requirement to sign the inventory extends only to the insulating witnesses and not to the accused.
• People vs. Artellero, 395 Phil. 876 (2000) — Followed for the doctrine that an appeal throws the whole case open for review and that a judgment shall not affect a non-appealing accused unless favorable and applicable to him.

• Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs. Applied to the November 10, 2003 incident involving the transportation and delivery of approximately 10 kilograms of shabu.
• Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes the possession of dangerous drugs, providing life imprisonment to death and a fine of ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000 where the quantity of shabu possessed is 50 grams or more. Applied to the November 11, 2003 warehouse search yielding 119.080 kg of shabu and 111.200 kg of chloromethamphetamine hydrochloride.
• Section 26(b), Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Defines conspiracy to sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, distribute, or transport dangerous drugs. Charged in relation to Section 5 for the November 10 incident.
• Section 21, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR — Prescribes the custody and disposition of seized drugs, requiring immediate physical inventory and photography in the presence of the accused and three insulating witnesses (media, DOJ, elected public official). The Court found total noncompliance with this provision for both operations, rendering the corpus delicti unproven.
• Section 11, Rule 122, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that an appeal by one of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. Applied to extend the acquittal to non-appealing co-accused Willie Gan.
• R.A. No. 10640 — Amended Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to require only two insulating witnesses (an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media). The Court noted this amendment was effective August 7, 2014, and thus did not apply to the November 2003 incidents.

Hernando, Inting, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Singh, JJ., concurred. Leonen, SAJ., M. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., filed separate concurring opinions. Caguioa, J., filed a concurring opinion. Lazaro-Javier, J., concurred in the result and filed a separate opinion.