[ G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017 ] CONTRARY TO LAW.

[4] promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its

constitutional rule-making power that breathes life to
SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. Y ASUELA, PETITIONER, On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the plea bargaining. It cannot be found in any statute.
HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement,[5]
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, LEGAZPI praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and, instead, to
CITY, ALBAY, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, enter a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12, Article II
RESPONDENTS. of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Without saying so, the accused implies that Sec. 23 of
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Republic Act No. 9165 is unconstitutional because it, in
Drugs) with a penalty of rehabilitation in view of his being effect, suspends the operation of Rule 118 of the Rules
a first-time offender and the minimal quantity of the of Court insofar as it allows plea bargaining as part of the
DECISION mandatory pre-trial conference in criminal cases.
dangerous drug seized in his possession. He argued that
PERALTA, J.: Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 violates: (1) the intent of the
law expressed in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof; (2) the
rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under The Court sees merit in the argument of the accused that
Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution; and (3) it is also the intendment of the law, R.A. No. 9165, to
Challenged in this petition for certiorari and prohibition[1]
the principle of separation of powers among the three rehabilitate an accused of a drug offense. Rehabilitation
is the constitutionality of Section 23 of Republic Act
equal branches of the government. is thus only possible in cases of use of illegal drugs
(R.A.) No. 9165, or the "Comprehensive Dangerous
because plea bargaining is disallowed. However, by
Drugs Act of 2002,"[2] which provides:
case law, the Supreme Court allowed rehabilitation for
SEC 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. - Any person In its Comment or Opposition[6] dated June 27, 2016, accused charged with possession of paraphernalia with
charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the the prosecution moved for the denial of the motion for traces of dangerous drugs, as held in People v. Martinez,
imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the being contrary to Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165, which is G.R. No. 191366, 13 December 2010. The ruling of the
provision on plea-bargaining.[3] said to be justified by the Congress' prerogative to Supreme Court in this case manifested the relaxation of
choose which offense it would allow plea bargaining. an otherwise stringent application of Republic Act No.
The facts are not in dispute. 9165 in order to serve an intent for the enactment of the
Later, in a Comment or Opposition[7] dated June 29,
2016, it manifested that it "is open to the Motion of the law, that is, to rehabilitate the offender.
accused to enter into plea bargaining to give life to the
Petitioner Salvador A. Estipona, Jr. (Estipona) is the intent of the law as provided in paragraph 3, Section 2 of
accused in Criminal Case No. 13586 for violation of [R.A. No.] 9165, however, with the express mandate of Within the spirit of the disquisition in People v. Martinez,
Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Section 23 of [R.A. No.] 9165 prohibiting plea bargaining, there might be plausible basis for the declaration of Sec.
Dangerous Drugs). The Information alleged: [it] is left without any choice but to reject the proposal of 23 of R.A. No. 9165, which bars plea bargaining as
the accused." unconstitutional because indeed the inclusion of the
That on or about the 21st day of March, 2016, in the City
provision in the law encroaches on the exclusive
of Legazpi, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
constitutional power of the Supreme Court.
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being
lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any On July 12, 2016, respondent Judge Frank E. Lobrigo of
regulated drug and without the corresponding license or the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Legazpi City,
prescription, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and Albay, issued an Order denying Estipona's motion. It was While basic is the precept that lower courts are not
feloniously have, in his possession and under his control opined: precluded from resolving, whenever warranted,
and custody, one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent constitutional questions, the Court is not unaware of the
The accused posited in his motion that Sec. 23 of RA No.
plastic sachet marked as VOP 03/21/16-1G containing admonition of the Supreme Court that lower courts must
9165, which prohibits plea bargaining, encroaches on
0.084 [gram] of white crystalline substance, which when observe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional
the exclusive constitutional power of the Supreme Court
examined were found to be positive for questions. Upon which admonition, it is thus not for this
to promulgate rules of procedure because plea
Methamphetamine Hydrocloride (Shabu), a dangerous lower court to declare Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165
bargaining is a "rule of procedure." Indeed, plea
drug. unconstitutional given the potential ramifications that
bargaining forms part of the Rules on Criminal
such declaration might have on the prosecution of illegal
Procedure, particularly under Rule 118, the rule on
drug cases pending before this judicial station.[8]
pre-trial conference. It is only the Rules of Court
Estipona filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was x x x [T]he Court is invested with the power to suspend
denied in an Order[9] dated July 26, 2016; hence, this the application of the rules of procedure as a necessary
petition raising the issues as follows: On matters of technicality, some points raised by the complement of its power to promulgate the same.
OSG maybe correct. Nonetheless, without much further Barnes v. Hon. Quijano Padilla discussed the rationale
I.WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. ado, it must be underscored that it is within this Court's for this tenet, viz.:
9165, WHICH PROHIBITS PLEA BARGAINING IN ALL power to make exceptions to the rules of court. Under
VIOLATIONS OF THE SAID LAW, IS proper conditions, We may permit the full and exhaustive Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should
UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF ventilation of the parties' arguments and positions be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL despite the supposed technical infirmities of a petition or attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application,
PROTECTION OF THE LAW. its alleged procedural flaws. In discharging its solemn which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate
duty as the final arbiter of constitutional issues, the Court rather than promote substantial justice, must always be
shall not shirk from its obligation to determine novel eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflect this principle.
issues, or issues of first impression, with far-reaching The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so
II.WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
implications.[11] pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this
9165 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT ENCROACHED
Court itself has already declared to be final, x x x.
UPON THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO
PROMULGATE RULES OF PROCEDURE.
Likewise, matters of procedure and technicalities
normally take a backseat when issues of substantial and The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford
transcendental importance are present.[12] We have every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper
III.WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, AS
acknowledged that the Philippines' problem on illegal and just determination of his cause, free from the
PRESIDED BY HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO,
drugs has reached "epidemic," "monstrous," and constraints of technicalities. Time and again, this Court
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
"harrowing" proportions,[13] and that its disastrously has consistently held that rules must not be applied
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
harmful social, economic, and spiritual effects have rigidly so as not to override substantial justice.[19]
JURISDICTION WHEN IT REFUSED TO DECLARE
broken the lives, shattered the hopes, and destroyed the
SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AS SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
future of thousands especially our young citizens.[14] At
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.[10]
the same time, We have equally noted that "as urgent as
We grant the petition. the campaign against the drug problem must be, so must
we as urgently, if not more so, be vigilant in the Rule-making power of the Supreme Court under the
protection of the rights of the accused as mandated by 1987 Constitution
the Constitution x x x who, because of excessive zeal on
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
the part of the law enforcers, may be unjustly accused
and convicted."[15] Fully aware of the gravity of the drug
Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
menace that has beset our country and its direct link to
explicitly provides:
The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the certain crimes, the Court, within its sphere, must do its
Solicitor General (OSG), contends that the petition part to assist in the all-out effort to lessen, if not totally Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
should be dismissed outright for being procedurally eradicate, the continued presence of drug lords, pushers powers:
defective on the grounds that: (1) the Congress should and users.[16]
have been impleaded as an indispensable party; (2) the
constitutionality of Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 cannot be
attacked collaterally; and (3) the proper recourse should (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
Bearing in mind the very important and pivotal issues enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
have been a petition for declaratory relief before this
raised in this petition, technical matters should not deter and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
Court or a petition for certiorari before the RTC.
Us from having to make the final and definitive of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
Moreover, the OSG argues that the petition fails to
pronouncement that everyone else depends for underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
satisfy the requisites of judicial review because: (1)
enlightenment and guidance.[17] When public interest inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
Estipona lacks legal standing to sue for failure to show
requires, the Court may brush aside procedural rules in cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade,
direct injury; (2) there is no actual case or controversy;
order to resolve a constitutional issue.[18] and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
and (3) the constitutionality of Section 23 of R.A. No.
9165 is not the lis mota of the case. rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless 1951 and 71% in the 1952 bar examinations. This Court and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
disapproved by the Supreme Court. struck down the law as unconstitutional. In his ponencia, rights."
Mr. Justice Diokno held that "x x x the disputed law is not
The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and a legislation; it is a judgment - a judgment promulgated Well worth noting is that the 1973 Constitution further
procedure is now Our exclusive domain and no longer by this Court during the aforecited years affecting the bar strengthened the independence of the judiciary by giving
shared with the Executive and Legislative candidates concerned; and although this Court certainly to it the additional power to promulgate rules governing
departments.[20] In Echegaray v. Secretary of can revoke these judgments even now, for justifiable the integration of the Bar.
Justice,[21] then Associate Justice (later Chief Justice) reasons, it is no less certain that only this Court, and not
Reynato S. Puna traced the history of the Court's the legislative nor executive department, that may do so.
rule-making power and highlighted its evolution and Any attempt on the part of these departments would be a The 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger and
development. clear usurpation of its function, as is the case with the more independent judiciary. Among others, it enhanced
law in question." The venerable jurist further ruled: "It is the rule making power of this Court. Its Section 5(5),
x x x It should be stressed that the power to promulgate
obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant Article VIII provides:
rules of pleading, practice and procedure was granted by
license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this
our Constitutions to this Court to enhance its
Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is
independence, for in the words of Justice Isagani Cruz
of permissive character, or as other authorities say,
"without independence and integrity, courts will lose that "Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license." By
popular trust so essential to the maintenance of their powers:
its ruling, this Court qualified the absolutist tone of the
vigor as champions of justice." Hence, our Constitutions
power of Congress to repeal, alter or supplement the
continuously vested this power to this Court for it
rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure, and
enhances its independence. Under the 1935
the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
Constitution, the power of this Court to promulgate rules
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice
concerning pleading, practice and procedure was
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
granted but it appeared to be co-existent with legislative
of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
power for it was subject to the power of Congress to The ruling of this Court in In re Cunanan was not
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
repeal, alter or supplement. Thus, its Section 13, Article changed by the 1973 Constitution. For the 1973
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
VIII provides: Constitution reiterated the power of this Court "to
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade,
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and
"Sec. 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
procedure in all courts, x x x which, however, may be
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
repealed, altered or supplemented by the Batasang
procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
Pambansa x x x." More completely, Section 5(2)5 of its
of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the disapproved by the Supreme Court."
Article X provided:
same grade and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
The rule making power of this Court was expanded. This
substantive rights. The existing laws on pleading, xxxx
Court for the first time was given the power to
practice and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes,
promulgate rules concerning the protection and
and are declared Rules of Court, subject to the power of
enforcement of constitutional rights. The Court was also
the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The
"Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following granted for the first time the power to disapprove rules of
Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter or
powers. x x x x procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice and
But most importantly, the 1987 Constitution took away
procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in
the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement
the Philippines."
(5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. In
The said power of Congress, however, is not as absolute procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of fine, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice
as it may appear on its surface. In In re: Cunanan law, and the integration of the Bar, which, however, may and procedure is no longer shared by this Court with
Congress in the exercise of its power to amend rules of be repealed, altered, or supplemented by the Batasang Congress, more so with the Executive. x x x[22]
the Supreme Court regarding admission to the practice Pambansa. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
Just recently, Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth
of law, enacted the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953 which inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
Division)[23] further elucidated:
considered as a passing grade, the average of 70% in cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade,
the bar examinations after July 4, 1946 up to August
While the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the textual reference to any form of Congressional
jurisdiction of the various courts is, by constitutional participation in Section 5 (5), Article VIII, supra. The
design, vested unto Congress, the power to promulgate prevailing consideration was that "both bodies, the 4. Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth
rules concerning the protection and enforcement of Supreme Court and the Legislature, have their inherent Division)[33] - The first paragraph of Section 14 of R.A.
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in powers." No. 6770, which prohibits courts except the Supreme
all courts belongs exclusively to this Court. Section 5 (5), Court from issuing temporary restraining order and/or
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution reads: writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin an investigation
conducted by the Ombudsman, Is unconstitutional as it
Thus, as it now stands, Congress has no authority to contravenes Rule 58 of the Rules.
repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading,
In Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice (Echegaray), the practice, and procedure. x x x.[24] Considering that the aforesaid laws effectively modified
Court traced the evolution of its rule-making authority, the Rules, this Court asserted its discretion to amend,
which, under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, had been The separation of powers among the three co-equal repeal or even establish new rules of procedure, to the
priorly subjected to a power-sharing scheme with branches of our government has erected an impregnable exclusion of the legislative and executive branches of
Congress. As it now stands, the 1987 Constitution wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules of government. To reiterate, the Court's authority to
textually altered the old provisions by deleting the pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province promulgate rules on pleading, practice, and procedure is
concurrent power of Congress to amend the rules, thus of this Court.[25] The other branches trespass upon this exclusive and one of the safeguards of Our institutional
solidifying in one body the Court's rule-making powers, in prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders that independence.[34]
line with the Framers' vision of institutionalizing a effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the procedural
"[s]tronger and more independent judiciary." rules promulgated by the Court.[26] Viewed from this
perspective, We have rejected previous attempts on the
part of the Congress, in the exercise of its legislative Plea bargaining in criminal cases
power, to amend the Rules of Court (Rules), to wit:
The records of the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission would show that the Framers debated on 1. Fabian v. Desierto[27] - Appeal from the decision of
Plea bargaining, as a rule and a practice, has been
whether or not the Court's rule- making powers should the Office of the Ombudsman in an administrative
existing in our jurisdiction since July 1, 1940, when the
be shared with Congress. There was an initial disciplinary case should be taken to the Court of Appeals
1940 Rules took effect. Section 4, Rule 114 (Pleas) of
suggestion to insert the sentence "The National under the provisions of Rule 43 of the Rules instead of
which stated:
Assembly may repeal, alter, or supplement the said rules appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 as provided in Section
with the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court," 27 of R.A. No. 6770. SEC. 4. Plea of guilty of lesser offense. - The defendant,
right after the phrase "Promulgate rules concerning the with the consent of the court and of the fiscal, may plead
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, guilty of any lesser offense than that charged which is
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the necessarily included in the offense charged in the
2. Cathay Metal Corporation v. Laguna West
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and complaint or information.
Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc.[28] - The Cooperative
legal assistance to the underprivileged[,]" in the
Code provisions on notices cannot replace the rules on
enumeration of powers of the Supreme Court. Later, When the 1964 Rules became effective on January 1,
summons under Rule 14 of the Rules.
Commissioner Felicitas S. Aquino proposed to delete the 1964, the same provision was retained under Rule 118
former sentence and, instead, after the word (Pleas). Subsequently, with the effectivity of the 1985
"[under]privileged," place a comma(,) to be followed by Rules on January 1, 1985, the provision on plea of guilty
"the phrase with the concurrence of the National 3. RE: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the to a lesser offense was amended. Section 2, Rule 116
Assembly." Eventually, a compromise formulation was GSIS from Payment of Legal Fees;[29] Baguio Market provided:
reached wherein (a) the Committee members agreed to Vendors Multi--Purpose Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO)
v. Han. Judge Cabato-Cortes;[30] In Re: Exemption of SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. - The accused
Commissioner Aquino's proposal to delete the phrase
the National Power Corporation from Payment of with the consent of the offended party and the fiscal, may
"the National Assembly may repeal, alter, or supplement
Filing/Docket Fees;[31] and Rep. of the Phils. v. Hon. be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser
the said rules with the advice and concurrence of the
Mangotara, et al.[32] - Despite statutory provisions, the offense, regardless of whether or not it is necessarily
Supreme Court" and (b) in turn, Commissioner Aquino
GSIS, BAMARVEMPCO, and NPC are not exempt from included in the crime charged, or is cognizable by a court
agreed to withdraw his proposal to add "the phrase with
the payment of legal fees imposed by Rule 141 of the of lesser jurisdiction than the trial court. No amendment
the concurrence of the National Assembly." The changes
Rules. of the complaint or information is necessary. (4a, R-118)
were approved, thereby leading to the present lack of
As well, the term "plea bargaining" was first mentioned allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after Hon. Desierto[40] laid down the test for determining
and expressly required during pre-trial. Section 2, Rule withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the whether a rule is substantive or procedural in nature.
118 mandated: complaint or information is necessary. (Sec. 4, Cir.
38-98) It will be noted that no definitive line can be drawn
SEC. 2. Pre-trial conference; subjects. - The pre-trial between those rules or statutes which are procedural,
conference shall consider the following: hence within the scope of this Court's rule-making
power, and those which are substantive. In fact, a
(a) Plea bargaining; RULE 118 (Pre-trial): particular rule may be procedural in one context and
substantive in another. It is admitted that what is
(b) Stipulation of facts;
procedural and what is substantive is frequently a
(c) Marking for identification of evidence of the parties; SEC. 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. - In all question of great difficulty. It is not, however, an
criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, insurmountable problem if a rational and pragmatic
(d) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; and Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal approach is taken within the context of our own
Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal procedural and jurisdictional system.
(e) Such other matters as will promote a fair and
Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and
expeditious trial. (n)
within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires
The 1985 Rules was later amended. While the wordings jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme
of Section 2, Rule 118 was retained, Section 2, Rule 116 shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars Court, for the practice and procedure of the lower courts,
was modified in 1987. A second paragraph was added, of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference to abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive right, the
stating that "[a] conviction under this plea shall be consider the following: test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that
equivalent to a conviction of the offense charged for is, the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties
(a) plea bargaining;
purposes of double jeopardy." recognized by substantive law and for justly
(b) stipulation of facts; administering remedy and redress for a disregard or
infraction of them. If the rule takes away a vested right, it
(c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties; is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the
When R.A. No. 8493 ("Speedy Trial Act of 1998") was
enacted,[35] Section 2, Rule 118 of the Rules was right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive
(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
substantially adopted. Section 2 of the law required that matter; but if it operates as a means of implementing an
plea bargaining and other matters[36] that will promote a (e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits existing right then the rule deals merely with
fair and expeditious trial are to be considered during the charge but interposes a lawful defense; and procedure.[41]
pre-trial conference in all criminal cases cognizable by
(f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious In several occasions, We dismissed the argument that a
the Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case. (Sec. 2 procedural rule violates substantive rights. For example,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, and the
& 3, Cir. 38-98) in People v. Lacson,[42] Section 8, Rule 117 of the Rules
Sandiganbayan.
on provisional dismissal was held as a special
Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure procedural limitation qualifying the right of the State to
prosecute, making the time-bar an essence of the given
Currently, the pertinent rules on plea bargaining under right or as an inherent part thereof, so that its expiration
the 2000 Rules[37] are quoted below: operates to extinguish the right of the State to prosecute
The Supreme Court's sole prerogative to issue, amend,
the accused.[43] Speaking through then Associate
RULE 116 (Arraignment and Plea): or repeal procedural rules is limited to the preservation of
Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., the Court opined:
substantive rights, i.e., the former should not diminish,
increase or modify the latter.[38] "Substantive law is that In the new rule in question, as now construed by the
part of the law which creates, defines and regulates Court, it has fixed a time-bar of one year or two years for
SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. - At rights, or which regulates the right and duties which give the revival of criminal cases provisionally dismissed with
arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the rise to a cause of action; that part of the law which courts the express consent of the accused and with a priori
offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by are established to administer; as opposed to adjective or notice to the offended party. The time-bar may appear,
the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing on first impression, unreasonable compared to the
necessarily included in the offense charged. After rights or obtain redress for their invasions."[39] Fabian v. periods under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code.
arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be
However, in fixing the time-bar, the Court balanced the Memories of witnesses may have grown dim or have It is not correct to say that Section 6, Rule 120, of the
societal interests and those of the accused for the faded. Passage of time makes proof of any fact more Rules of Court diminishes or modifies the substantive
orderly and speedy disposition of criminal cases with difficult. The accused may become a fugitive from justice rights of petitioners. It only works in pursuance of the
minimum prejudice to the State and the accused. It took or commit another crime. The longer the lapse of time power of the Supreme Court to "provide a simplified and
into account the substantial rights of both the State and from the dismissal of the case to the revival thereof, the inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
of the accused to due process. The Court believed that more difficult it is to prove the crime. cases." This provision protects the courts from delay in
the time limit is a reasonable period for the State to the speedy disposition of criminal cases - delay arising
revive provisionally dismissed cases with the consent of from the simple expediency of nonappearance of the
the accused and notice to the offended parties. The accused on the scheduled promulgation of the judgment
On the other side of the fulcrum, a mere provisional
time-bar fixed by the Court must be respected unless it is of conviction.[46]
dismissal of a criminal case does not terminate a criminal
shown that the period is manifestly short or insufficient
case. The possibility that the case may be revived at any By the same token, it is towards the provision of a
that the rule becomes a denial of justice. The petitioners
time may disrupt or reduce, if not derail, the chances of simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
failed to show a manifest shortness or insufficiency of the
the accused for employment, curtail his association, disposition of cases in all courts[47] that the rules on
time-bar.
subject him to public obloquy and create anxiety in him plea bargaining was introduced. As a way of disposing
and his family. He is unable to lead a normal life because criminal charges by agreement of the parties, plea
of community suspicion and his own anxiety. He bargaining is considered to be an "important,"
The new rule was conceptualized by the Committee on continues to suffer those penalties and disabilities "essential," "highly desirable," and "legitimate"
the Revision of the Rules and approved by the Court en incompatible with the presumption of innocence. He may component of the administration of justice.[48] Some of
banc primarily to enhance the administration of the also lose his witnesses or their memories may fade with its salutary effects include:
criminal justice system and the rights to due process of the passage of time. In the long run, it may diminish his
the State and the accused by eliminating the deleterious capacity to defend himself and thus eschew the fairness x x x For a defendant who sees slight possibility of
practice of trial courts of provisionally dismissing criminal of the entire criminal justice system. acquittal, the advantages of pleading guilty and limiting
cases on motion of either the prosecution or the accused the probable penalty are obvious his exposure is
or jointly, either with no time-bar for the revival thereof or reduced, the correctional processes can begin
with a specific or definite period for such revival by the immediately, and the practical burdens of a trial are
The time-bar under the new rule was fixed by the Court
public prosecutor. There were times when such criminal eliminated. For the State there are also advantages - the
to excise the malaise that plagued the administration of
cases were no longer revived or refiled due to causes more promptly imposed punishment after an admission
the criminal justice system for the benefit of the State
beyond the control of the public prosecutor or because of of guilt may more effectively attain the objectives of
and the accused; not for the accused only.[44]
the indolence, apathy or the lackadaisical attitude of punishment; and with the avoidance of trial, scarce
public prosecutors to the prejudice of the State and the Also, We said in Jaylo, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al.[45] judicial and prosecutorial resources are conserved for
accused despite the mandate to public prosecutors and that Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules, which provides those cases in which there is a substantial issue of the
trial judges to expedite criminal proceedings. that an accused who failed to appear at the promulgation defendant's guilt or in which there is substantial doubt
of the judgment of conviction shall lose the remedies that the State can sustain its burden of proof. (Brady v.
available against the judgment, does not take away United States, 397 U.S. 742, 752 [1970])
It is almost a universal experience that the accused substantive rights but merely provides the manner
welcomes delay as it usually operates in his favor, through which an existing right may be implemented.
especially if he greatly fears the consequences of his trial Disposition of charges after plea discussions x x x leads
Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court, does not take
and conviction. He is hesitant to disturb the hushed to prompt and largely final disposition of most criminal
away per se the right of the convicted accused to avail of
inaction by which dominant cases have been known to cases; it avoids much of the corrosive impact of enforced
the remedies under the Rules. It is the failure of the
expire. idleness during pretrial confinement for those who are
accused to appear without justifiable cause on the
denied release pending trial; it protects the public from
scheduled date of promulgation of the judgment of
those accused persons who are prone to continue
conviction that forfeits their right to avail themselves of
criminal conduct even while on pretrial release; and, by
The inordinate delay in the revival or refiling of criminal the remedies against the judgment.
shortening the time between charge and disposition, it
cases may impair or reduce the capacity of the State to
enhances whatever may be the rehabilitative prospects
prove its case with the disappearance or nonavailability
of the guilty when they are ultimately imprisoned.
of its witnesses. Physical evidence may have been lost.
(Santobello v. New York, 404 u.s. 257, 261 [1971])
 by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong), Plea bargaining is allowed during the arraignment, the
to be convicted by proof beyond reasonable doubt, and pre-trial, or even up to the point when the prosecution
The defendant avoids extended pretrial incarceration not to be compelled to be a witness against himself.[55] already rested its case.[63] As regards plea bargaining
and the anxieties and uncertainties of a trial; he gains a during the pre-trial stage, the trial court's exercise of
speedy disposition of his case, the chance to discretion should not amount to a grave abuse
acknowledge his guilt, and a prompt start in realizing thereof.[64] "Grave abuse of discretion" is a capricious
whatever potential there may be for rehabilitation. Yet a defendant has no constitutional right to plea
and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross
Judges and prosecutors conserve vital and scarce bargain. No basic rights are infringed by trying him rather
as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual
resources. The public is protected from the risks posed than accepting a plea of guilty; the prosecutor need not
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the
by those charged with criminal offenses who are at large do so if he prefers to go to trial.[56] Under the present
power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner
on bail while awaiting completion of criminal Rules, the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is not a
because of passion or hostility; it arises when a court or
proceedings. (Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71 demandable right but depends on the consent of the
tribunal violates the Constitution, the law or existing
[1977]) offended party[57] and the prosecutor, which is a
jurisprudence.[65]
condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser
In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as offense that is necessarily included in the offense
"a process whereby the accused and the prosecution charged.[58] The reason for this is that the prosecutor
work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case has full control of the prosecution of criminal actions; his If the accused moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense
subject to court approval."[49] There is give-and-take duty is to always prosecute the proper offense, not any subsequent to a bail hearing or after the prosecution
negotiation common in plea bargaining.[50] The essence lesser or graver one, based on what the evidence on rested its case, the rules allow such a plea only when the
of the agreement is that both the prosecution and the hand can sustain.[59] prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to
defense make concessions to avoid potential losses.[51] establish the guilt of the crime charged.[66] The only
Properly administered, plea bargaining is to be [Courts] normally must defer to prosecutorial decisions basis on which the prosecutor and the court could
encouraged because the chief virtues of the system - as to whom to prosecute. The reasons for judicial rightfully act in allowing change in the former plea of not
speed, economy, and finality - can benefit the accused, deference are well known. Prosecutorial charging guilty could be nothing more and nothing less than the
the offended party, the prosecution, and the court.[52] decisions are rarely simple. In addition to assessing the evidence on record. As soon as the prosecutor has
strength and importance of a case, prosecutors also submitted a comment whether for or against said motion,
must consider other tangible and intangible factors, such it behooves the trial court to assiduously study the
as government enforcement priorities. Finally, they also prosecution's evidence as well as all the circumstances
Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage,[53] must decide how best to allocate the scarce resources of upon which the accused made his change of plea to the
the rules on plea bargaining neither create a right nor a criminal justice system that simply cannot end that the interests of justice and of the public will be
take away a vested right. Instead, it operates as a means accommodate the litigation of every serious criminal served.[67] The ruling on the motion must disclose the
to implement an existing right by regulating the judicial charge. Because these decisions "are not readily strength or weakness of the prosecution's evidence.[68]
process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are Absent any finding on the weight of the evidence on
substantive law and for justly administering remedy and competent to undertake," we have been "properly hand, the judge's acceptance of the defendant's change
redress for a disregard or infraction of them. hesitant to examine the decision whether to of plea is improper and irregular.[69]
prosecute."[60]

The plea is further addressed to the sound discretion of

The decision to plead guilty is often heavily influenced by
the trial court, which may allow the accused to plead On whether Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 violates the
the defendant's appraisal of the prosecution's case
guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in equal protection clause
against him and by the apparent likelihood of securing
the offense charged. The word may denotes an exercise
leniency should a guilty plea be offered and
of discretion upon the trial court on whether to allow the
accepted.[54] In any case, whether it be to the offense
accused to make such plea.[61] Trial courts are exhorted
charged or to a lesser crime, a guilty plea is a "serious At this point, We shall not resolve the issue of whether
to keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense
and sobering occasion" inasmuch as it constitutes a Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is contrary to the
than that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed
waiver of the fundamental rights to be presumed constitutional right to equal protection of the law in order
as a matter of bargaining or compromise for the
innocent until the contrary is proved, to be heard by not to preempt any future discussion by the Court on the
convenience of the accused.[62]
himself and counsel, to meet the witnesses face to face, policy considerations behind Section 23 of R.A. No.
to bail (except those charged with offenses punishable 9165. Pending deliberation on whether or not to adopt
the statutory provision in toto or a qualified version
thereof, We deem it proper to declare as invalid the
prohibition against plea bargaining on drug cases until CRIM. CASE NO. 12852
and unless it is made part of the rules of procedure
(Viol. of Sec. 5, Art. II, R.A. 9165)
through an administrative circular duly issued for the
purpose.

G.R. No. 205787

WHEREFORE, the petttton for certiorari and prohibition
is GRANTED. Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165 is
declared unconstitutional for being contrary to the That on or about the 21st day of September 2005, in the
rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
November 22, 2017 G.R. No. 205787 of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
conspiring, confederating together, and mutually helping
one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee feloniously, and knowingly, without any legal purpose,
SO ORDERED.
sell, transfer, deliver and give away One (1) transparent
vs. cellophane sachet containing small amount of white
powdered substance commonly known as shabu powder
PABLO ARPOSEPLE y SANCHEZ and JHUNREL
which could no longer be measured in terms of weight,
SULOGAOL y DATU, Accused-Appellants
but could not be more than 0.01 gram, for and in
consideration of the amount of Five Hundred Pesos
(₱500.00) Philippine currency, the accused knowing fully
DECISION well that the above-mentioned substance which contains
METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE is a
dangerous drug and that they did not have any lawful
authority, permit or license to sell the same, to the
MARTIRES, J.:
damage and prejudice of the Republic of the Philippines.

This resolves the appeal of Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez

Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Section 5,
(Arposeple) and Jhunrel Sulogaol y Datu1 (Sulogaol)
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
from the 3 October 2011 Decision2 of the Court of
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, repealing R.A. 6425, as
Appeals (CA), in CA G.R. CR-HC No. 00865 which
amended.4
affirmed, but with modification as to the fine imposed in
Criminal Case No. 12853, the 20 November 2007
Omnibus Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
Criminal Case Nos. 12852 to 12854. CRIM. CASE N0.12853

(Viol. of Sec. 11, Art. II, R.A. 9165)

THE FACTS

That on or about the 21st day of September 2005, in the

City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
Arposeple and Sulogaol were both charged with three of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
counts of violation of certain provisions of R.A. No. 9165 conspiring, confederating together, and mutually helping
before the RTC of Tagbilaran City, Bohol, viz: one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully,
feloniously, and knowingly have in their possession, returned from a house in front of the monastery, the
custody, and control two (2) pcs. empty transparent appellants arrived. The asset introduced Ramos to the
cellophane sachets containing suspected shabu leftover When arraigned, both appellants pleaded not guilty; appellants who at first were hesitant to sell him shabu.
which could no longer be measured in terms of weight, thus, the consolidated trial of these cases took place. Sulogaol told Arposeple, "Ato lang ni hatagan bay,"10 to
but could not be more than 0.01 gram, the accused which the latter replied "sige hatagan na lang nato."11
knowing fully well that the above-mentioned substance With the agreement to sell shabu, Ramos gave the
which contains Methamphetamine Hydrochloride is a The Version of the Prosecution ₱500.00 marked money to Arposeple, while Sulogaol
dangerous drug and that they did not have any lawful took one transparent sachet from his pocket and handed
authority, permit or license to possess the same, to the this to Arposeple who in turn gave it to Ramos. With the
damage and prejudice of the Republic of the Philippines. sale consummated, Ramos took off his cap but, as the
To prove its cases, the prosecution presented the
team approached, the appellants ran in opposite
testimonies of the following: Police Superintendent
directions.12
(P/Supt.) Victoria C. de Guzman (De Guzman), Police
Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Section 11, Officer 2 (PO2) Jay E. Ramos (Ramos), Police Officer I
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive (PO1) Earl U. Tabuelog (Tabuelog), Police Inspector
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, repealing R.A. 6425, as (P/Insp.) Miguel Jimenez (Jimenez), and Barangay Ramos chased Arposeple until they reached a house
amended.5 Kagawad Mary Jane Ruiz (Ruiz). fronting the monastery. Ramos got hold of Arposeple's
shirt but as they grappled they found themselves inside
the house. With the aid of Brunidor and Bagotchay,
Ramos was able to handcuff Arposeple. A body search
CRIM. CASE NO. 12854 At around 3:00 a.m. on 21 September 2005, Jimenez,
on Arposeple yielded a playing card case13 containing
who was the Assistant City Drug Enforcement Officer,
(Viol. of Sec. 12, Art. II, R.A. 9165) the following: one piece sachet with suspected shabu
held a briefing at his office on a buy-bust operation to be
leftover;14 a hundred peso bill;15 two pieces empty
carried out at Ubujan District, Tagbilaran City. The
transparent cellophane sachets containing suspected
briefing, with the appellants as the subjects of the
shabu leftover;16 two pieces of aluminum foil used as
That on or about the 21st day of September 2005, in the buy-bust operation, was attended by the buy-bust team
tooters;17 two pieces folded aluminum foil18 two pieces
City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction (team) composed of PO3 Rolando Bagotchay
disposable 1ighters;19 one piece bamboo c1ip;20 an d
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, (Bagotchay), PO3 Jonathan Bafiocia, PO3 Rodante
one piece half-blade.21 The marked
conspiring, confederating together, and mutually helping Sanchez, PO3 Norman Brunidor (Brunidor), PO2 Jay
five-hundred-peso22 bill was found in Arposeple's left
one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, Tizon, Ramos, Tabuelog, PO2 Ruben Baculi, who was
pocket. Ramos informed Arposeple of his constitutional
feloniously and knowingly have in their possession, the representative of the Criminal Investigation and
rights.23
custody and control to wit: two (2) pcs. rolled aluminum Detection Group, and the informant. Jimenez gave
foil used as tooter; two (2) pcs. folded aluminum foil; two ₱500.007 to Ramos, the poseurbuyer, while Bagotchay
(2) pcs. disposable lighters; one (1) pc. bamboo clip; and would be the recorder and property custodian. Jimenez
one (1) pc. half blade, the accused knowing fully well that instructed Ramos to take off his cap as the pre-arranged Tabuelog caught Sulogaol after a brief chase. The body
the above- mentioned items are the instruments, signal that the transaction had been consummated.8 search on Sulogaol yielded negative. Tabuelog likewise
apparatus or paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, informed Sulogaol of his constitutional rights.24
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting or
introducing dangerous drug into the body, and that he
After the briefing, the team proceeded to their
did not have any lawful authority, permit or license to Ramos turned over the seized items to Bagotchay who
designated area, i.e., the Monastery of the Holy Spirit
possess the same, to the damage and prejudice of the filled out the certificate of inventory.25 The inventory was
(monastery) located at CPG North Avenue, Ubujan
Republic of the Philippines. witnessed by the appellants and by Barangay Kagawads
District, Tagbilaran City. Ramos and the informant
proceeded in front of the monastery while the rest of the Ruiz and Felixia Ligue, and Zacarias Castro and Willy
team positioned themselves at the nearby GH Motors.9 Maestrado, who acted as representatives of the
Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Section 12, Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive respectively.26 Except for the appellants who refused to
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, repealing R.A. No. 6425, sign the certificate of inventory, the other witnesses
Ramos instructed the asset to inform the appellants that
as amended.6 did.27
he had a friend who wanted to buy shabu. After the asset
 room which was occupied thereafter by Ondoy Belly. At
about 2:00 a.m. on 21 September 2005, she observed a
The appellants were brought to the Tagbilaran Police The Version of the Defense passenger van parked outside the house and saw
Station for proper disposition28 while Ramos and Sulogaol hand money to its driver. At about 3:00 a.m.,
Tabuelog executed their respective affidavits29 in she heard banging on the door of the other house.
relation to what had happened during the buy-bust Thinking nothing of the commotion, she went back to
The defense presented their version of what happened
operation.30 sleep.43
in the morning of 21 September 2005 through Myra Tara
(Tara), Joan Cortes Bohol (Bohol), Arposeple and
Sulogaol.
At 3:05 p.m. on the same day, the Philippine Provincial When Bohol woke up at about 6:00 a.m., she saw a
Crime Laboratory Office of Camp Francisco Dagohoy, vehicle and four uniformed policemen outside. She saw
Tagbilaran City (laboratory), received a request31 for the Arposeple and Sulogaol who, while resisting the
Tara testified that at about 4:30 a.m. on 21 September
laboratory examination of the following: one piece policemen's arrest, claimed that they did not commit any
2005, while she was sleeping at the house she was
transparent cellophane sachet (labelled PA/JS-09-21-01 crime. The policemen told Arposeple and Sulogaol to
renting with Cory Jane Rama (Rama), she was
YB); two pieces empty transparent cellophane sachets explain themselves at the police station. Arposeple, who
awakened by the appellants who wanted to borrow
(labelled PA/JS-09- 21-05-02 YB and PNJS-09-21-05-03
₱200.00 to pay for the van that they hired to come back was in handcuffs, and Sulogaol were made to board a
YB); two pieces aluminum foil used as tooters (labelled vehicle.44
from Tubigon, Bohol. She handed the ₱200.00 to
PA/JS-09-21-05-04 YB and PA/JS-09-21-05-05); and
Sulogaol, and while peeping from the window, she saw
two pieces aluminum foil (labelled PA/JS-09-21-05-06
Sulogaol hand the ₱200.00 to the driver of the van
YB and PA/JS 09- 21-05-07 YB). These were marked by
parked in front of the house.40 After the vehicle had gone, Bohol went to Tara's house
De Guzman, the forensic chemical officer of the
laboratory as specimens "A" "B" and "B-1 "· "C" and and saw Tara, Jessa, Mylene Amora, and Tara's visitor
"C-1" "D" and "E," respectively. On 22 September 2005, seated on the bed and trembling. The house was in
after the laboratory examination, De Guzman came up Arposeple and Sulogaol proceeded to the room the disarray and Tara's playing cards were scattered on the
with Chemistry Report No. D-117-200532 stating that, former used to rent but since its present occupant, floor and on the bed. They told her that Arposeple and
except for specimen "E" labelled as PA/JS 09-21-05-06 Ondoy, had a visitor, Arposeple and Sulogaol went back Sulogaol were playing cards with them when the
YB, all the specimens were positive for the presence of to Tara's place and requested that she allow them to play policemen came; that Arposeple had refused to go with
methamphetamine hydrochloride.33 tong-its inside her house while waiting for daylight. She the policemen claiming he did not commit any crime.45
acceded and allowed them to use her playing cards.41

It was also on 21 September 2005 that the laboratory In his defense, Arposeple testified that in the early dawn
received the request34 for drug/urine test on the While Tara, together with Rama, Jessa, and Susan, was of 21 September 2005, he went to Tara's house to
appellants to determine whether they had used any sleeping inside the room, she was awakened by the borrow money to pay for the car rental. He and Sulogaol
prohibited drugs. The screening laboratory test and the sound of a strong kick to the door of the house. Two had come from Cebu and were on their way to
confirmatory examination conducted the following day persons barged in saying, "We are policemen! Do not Tubigon-Tagbilaran, Bohol, when they rented the van.
were done in the presence of the appellants. The move!" while pointing their guns at Arposeple and He chose to pass by Tara to borrow ₱l00.00 because
screening tests on both appellants yielded positive Sulogaol. The two men grabbed Arposeple and she was his friend. After paying for the rental, he and
results for the presence of methamphetamine Sulogaol, dragged them out of the house, and Sulogaol stayed at Tara's place and played with her
hydrochloride and negative for marijuana. De Guzman's handcuffed them. Arposeple and Sulogaol protested cards. Tara took care of her child while Susan, Jessa,
findings were contained in Chemistry Report Nos. while they were being frisked but to no avail. Two other and Cory were sleeping.46
DT-242-200535 and DT-243-200536 for Arposeple and policemen outside the house boarded Arposeple and
Sulogaol, respectively. The confirmatory tests on the Sulogaol into a parked police vehicle.42
urine samples of the appellants likewise gave positive At about 3:00 a.m., three men kicked the door, entered
results for the presence of methamphetamine the house, and pointed their guns at him and Sulogaol.
hydrochloride as evinced in Chemistry Report Nos. Bohol, Tara's landlady, testified that she knew He asked what crime they had committed but Ramos
DT-242A-200537 and DT-243A-200538 for Arposeple Arposeple, he being her former boarder. Before told him to produce the shabu. He told PO2 Ramos he
and Sulogaol, respectively.39 Arposeple's stay at her house, he stayed at an adjacent had nothing to show because he had no shabu. Ramos
frisked him and Sulogaol while Ramos' companions no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance adduced and
searched around. Ramos found nothing on him and on proven at the trial, the said accused are each hereby
Sulogaol.47 While he and Arposeple were playing cards, two sentenced to the indivisible penalty of life imprisonment
policemen in civilian clothes kicked the door and said and to pay a fine of ₱300,000.00 Pesos, with the
they were conducting a raid. The policemen handcuffed accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs.
Arposeple while he was picking up the scattered cards.
After a while, other policemen arrived and, together with The policemen pointed their guns at them. When Tara
Ramos, frisked him and Sulogaol. While he was in asked the policemen why Arposeple was handcuffed,
handcuffs, Ramos frisked him again.48 they said that Arposeple sold shabu. Sulogaol and In Criminal Case No. 12853, the court finds accused
Arposeple were frisked twice by the policemen but Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez, guilty beyond reasonable
nothing was found on them. Sulogaol saw Ramos put a doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II,
plastic sachet containing shabu on the table. He told of R.A. 9165, embraced in the aforequoted information.
Ramos and his two companions then left and soon after
Ramos not to plant evidence against them since nothing There being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance
returned with Jimenez. He and Sulogaol were again
was found on them. Two of the policemen left the room adduced and proven at the trial, the said accused is
frisked and ordered to remove their clothes and to lower
while the other two stayed behind to watch over him and hereby sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of
their underwear to their knees. Nothing was found in
Arposeple.52 imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1)
their person. Ramos got shabu, money, tin foil, and a
DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, as
lighter from his pocket and placed these on the table.
maximum, and to pay a fine of ₱200,000.00 Pesos, with
Arposeple protested Ramos' act of planting evidence but
the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs.
Ramos told him to explain himself at the police station. After two hours, the two policemen who had earlier left
He was made to board a police car while Sulogaol was returned with two barangay kagawads and a
being investigated by the policemen. He told Tara that representative from the media. He and Arposeple were
she and Sulogaol would be his witnesses as they had frisked again. While Arposeple was being boarded into In Criminal Case No. 12854, the court finds accused
seen the policemen plant evidence.49 the car, Jimenez told Sulogaol he would not be charged Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez, guilty beyond reasonable
as long as he would testify against Arposeple. When he doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 12, Article II,
declined the offer, he was also made to board the of R.A. 9165, embraced in the aforequoted information.
vehicle. At the police station, he and Arposeple were There being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance
Arposeple was brought to the police station with
made to sign a paper but when they refused, they were adduced and proven at the trial, the said accused is
Sulogaol where he complained that the policemen had
told to admit owning the shabu and the piece of the foil. hereby sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of
planted evidence against him. Ramos told him that the
When they refused to be photographed with the items imprisonment of from SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1)
items were not his (Ramos) but belonged to the CIDG.
that were allegedly seized, Arposeple was hit on the face DAY, as minimum, to FOUR (4) years, as maximum, and
Arposeple did not request a lawyer when he was jailed
while he was hit on the chest and struck with a placard to pay a fine of ₱25,000.00 Pesos, with the accessory
because he has no relatives in Bohol. He was
on his right leg.53 penalties of the law, and to pay the costs.
investigated by the chief of police and other policemen.
He did not sign the inventory of the items allegedly taken
from him because there was actually nothing found on
him. Because he and Sulogaol were not willing to have The Ruling of the RTC The charges against accused Jhunrel Sulogaol, under
their pictures taken at the police station, he was hit at the Criminal Case Nos. 12853 and 12854 are hereby
back of his head and slapped by a policeman while ordered dismissed and the said accused acquitted, for
Sulogaol was hit on the stomach by Ramos.50 insufficiency of evidence.
On 20 November 2007, the RTC rendered its decision54
in these cases, viz:

Sulogaol testified that in the early dawn of 21 September Accused, being detention prisoners are hereby credited
2005, he and Arposeple were at Ubujan District, in full of the period of their preventive imprisonment.
Tagbilaran City, to borrow ₱l00.00 from Tara, WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 12852, the court
Arposeple's friend, to pay for their v-hire fare. After finds accused Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez and Jhunrel
paying for the fare, Arposeple and Sulogaol decided to Sulogaol y Datu, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense of Violation of Section 5, Article II, of R.A. 9165, In compliance with Par. 4, Section 21 of R.A. 9165, the
stay at Tara's place to play cards unti1 morning.51
embraced in the afore-quoted information. There being evidence in these cases consisting of one (1) sachet of
shabu, with an aggregate weight of 0.01 gram, and
paraphernalia with Shabu leftovers are hereby ordered because his testimony will only be corroborative and An accused is presumed
confiscated, destroyed and/or burned, subject to the cumulative.60
implementing guidelines of the Dangerous Drugs Board innocent until his guilt
as to the proper disposition and destruction of such item.
is proven beyond
In compliance with Sec. 11(3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
the CA found the need to modify in Crim. Case No. reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.55 12853 the fine imposed by the RTC to Arposeple from
₱200,000.00 to ₱300,000.00. Thus, the dispositive
portion of the CA's decision reads: In all criminal cases, the presumption of innocence of an
The Ruling of the CA accused is a fundamental constitutional right that should
be upheld at all times, viz:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant
appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the assailed 20
Arguing that the essential elements of the crimes had not
November 2007 Decision of the Regional Trial Court 2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
been established by the prosecution with moral certainty,
(RTC), Branch 2 of Tagbilaran City, Bohol is hereby presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
the appellants appealed before the CA, Cebu City. The
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The fine imposed to enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
CA, through its Nineteenth Division,56 however did not
Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez in Criminal Case No. 12853 informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
agree with the appellants and ruled that the trial court
is hereby increased to Three Hundred Thousand Pesos against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial,
had the unique opportunity, denied of appellate courts, to
(Php300,000.00) to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor,
conduct, and attitude under direct and compulsory process to secure the attendance of
cross-examination.57 The CA held that the prosecution witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
witnesses categorically testified in court and positively No pronouncement as to costs.61 However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
identified the appellants, and that the buy-bust operation notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided,
was regularly conducted by the police.58 Moreover, it that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
declared that although the team have not strictly unjustifiable.62
ISSUE
complied with the requirements of the chain of custody,
they had substantially complied therewith, viz: Ramos
turned over the seized items to Bagotchay; on the same In consonance with this constitutional provision, the
day, the items, which had been properly marked were The sole issue raised by the appellants was the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution63 and the
turned over to the laboratory and received by PO2 following: accused must then be acquitted and set free should the
Casagan; de Guzman made her own markings on the prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence
items; and the items were presented in court by Ramos in his favor.64 Conversely, in convicting the accused all
and de Guzman, who identified that the items were those THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE the elements of the crime charged must be proven
seized from the buy-bust operation where the appellants ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED beyond reasonable doubt,65 viz:
were arrested.59 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION
FAILED TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND
RESONABLE DOUBT. Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - x x x Proof
The CA held that the failure of the buy-bust team in beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree
complying with Section (Sec.) 21, R.A. No. 9165 did not of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces
render the items as inadmissible in evidence considering THE RULING OF THE COURT absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or
that what were essential and necessary in drug cases that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
were preserved by the arresting officers in compliance unprejudiced mind.66
with the requirements of the law. On the one hand, the
non-presentation of the informant was ruled by the CA as The appeal is meritorious.
dispensable for the successful prosecution of the cases
Settled in our jurisprudence is the rule that the conviction In Crim. Case Nos. 12853 and 12854, although both must be clearly established. The justification for this
of the accused must rest, not on the weakness of the appellants were charged with violation of Secs. 1171 and declaration is elucidated as follows:
defense, but on the strength of the prosecution. The 12,72 Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, on
burden is not on the accused to prove his innocence.67
Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To
Arposeple was convicted on both counts after the R TC determine their composition and nature, they must
On the one hand, unless some facts or circumstances of ruled that the sachets of shabu and the drug undergo scientific testing and analysis. Narcotic
weight and influence have been overlooked or the paraphernalia were found only in his person after the .substances are also highly susceptible to alteration,
significance of which has been misinterpreted, the team undertook a body search. It must be remembered tampering, or contamination. It is imperative, therefore,
findings and conclusion of the trial court on the credibility that a person lawfully arrested may be searched without that the drugs allegedly seized from the accused are the
of witnesses are entitled to great respect and will not be a warrant for anything which may have been used or very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in
disturbed because it has the advantage of hearing the may constitute proof in the commission of an offense.73 court as evidence. The chain of custody, as a method of
witnesses and observing their deportment and manner of authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts
testifying.68 This rule however is not set in stone as not involving the identity of seized drugs are removed.79
to admit recognized exceptions considering that "an
Jurisprudence dictates that to secure a conviction for
appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of
review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to
R.A. 9165, the prosecution must establish the following: Equally significant therefore as establishing all the
correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of elements of violations of R.A. No. 9165 is proving that
judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. The
the sale, and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the there was no hiatus in the chain of custody of the
appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over
thing sold and the payment therefor.74 The essential dangerous drugs and paraphernalia. It would be useless
the case and renders such court competent to examine
elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under to still proceed to determine the existence of the
records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase
Sec. 11 are as follows: (1) the accused is in possession elements of the crime if the corpus delicti had not been
the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal
of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited proven beyond moral certainty. Irrefragably, the
law."69 (citations omitted)
drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and prosecution cannot prove its case for violation of the
(3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 when the seized items could
said drug.75 On the one hand, the elements of illegal not be accounted for or when there were significant
With these as our guideposts, we shall proceed to possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and breaks in their chain of custody that would cast doubt as
evaluate the records of these cases. other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Sec. 12 to whether those items presented in court were actually
are the following: (1) possession or control by the those that were seized. An enlightened precedent
accused of any equipment, apparatus or other provides for the meaning of chain of custody, viz:
paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming,
The charges against the
administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any
appellants vis-a-vis the dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession
Chain of custody is defined as "the duly recorded
is not authorized by law.76 The CA ruled that all the
authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
requirement on the elements of the offenses charged against appellants
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
were established with moral certainty.77
unbroken chain of drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
custody of the seized laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
We do not agree. destruction." Such record of movements and custody of
drugs
seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item,
the date and time when such transfer of custody were
In People v. Jaafar78 we declared that in all
In Crim. Case No. 12852, Arposeple and Sulogaol were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
prosecutions for violations of R.A. No. 9165, the corpus
charged and convicted with violation of Sec. 5, Article evidence, and the final disposition.80
delicti is the dangerous drug itself, the existence of which
(Art.) II of R.A. No. 9165.70
is essential to a judgment of conviction; thus, its identity
The stringent requirement as to the chain of custody of search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal
seized drugs and paraphernalia was given life in the or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.84
provisions of R.A. No. 9165, viz: whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;
Provided, further that noncompliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
a. The first link was weak.
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
Sources of Dangerous Drugs. Controlled Precursors and
custody over said items. On the first link, the importance of marking had been
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
discussed as follows:
Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge
and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential Even the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) - the
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or policy-making and strategy-formulating body in the The first stage in the chain of custody is the marking of
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or planning and formulation of policies and programs on the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following drug prevention and control tasked to develop and adopt the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by
manner: a comprehensive, integrated, unified and balanced the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his
national drug abuse prevention and control strategy81 - initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be
has expressly defined chain of custody involving the made in the presence of the apprehended violator
dangerous drugs and other substances in the following immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and
terms in Sec. l(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of marking cannot be denied, because succeeding
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
2002,82 to wit: handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items will use
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s
set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
items from other material from the moment they are
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded
confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching,
and any elected public official who shall be required to controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
planting, or contamination of evidence. In short, the
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of
thereof; time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of
value.85
seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A.
person who held temporary custody of the seized item,
No. 9165 provides the proper procedure to be followed in
the date and time when such transfer of custody were
Sec. 2l(a) of the Act, viz:
made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as The prosecution claimed that the body search conducted
evidence, and the final disposition.83 by Ramos on Arposeple yielded the seized items. The
inventory of the items by Bagotchay outside Tara's
a. The apprehending office/team having initial custody house was witnessed by the appellants, two kagawads,
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and a representative each from the DOJ and the media.
Jurisprudence dictates the links that must be established
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph Except for the appellants, the witnesses to the inventory
in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first, the
the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s including Jimenez, as team leader, and Tara, as
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, representative of the appellants, affixed their respective
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative signatures on the certificate of inventory. Noteworthy,
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), nothing was mentioned in the certificate of inventory as
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the
and any elected public official who shall be required to to the marking of the seized items considering that the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy certificate contained a plain enumeration of the items,
the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and viz:
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
 when these were probably brought to the police station him to submit these to the laboratory; the identity and
for marking. signature of the person who held temporary custody of
One (1) pc. transparent cellophane sachet containing seized items; the date and time when such transfer of
suspected shabu powder custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use
in court as evidence; and the final disposition.93
De Guzman admitted that she had no knowledge as to
who made the markings on the evidence.89 Even Ruiz's
Two (2) pcs. empty transparent cellophane sachets testimony never made mention of the marking. True,
containing suspected shabu leftover there were already markings on the seized items when To stress, in order that the seized items may be
these were submitted to the laboratory for examination admissible, the prosecution must show by records or
but not one of the prosecution witnesses testified as to testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at
Two (2) pcs. rolled aluminum foil used for tooter who had made the markings, how and when the items least between the times it came into the possession of
were marked, and the meaning of these markings. the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to
Conspicuously, the uncertainty exceedingly pervades determine its composition up to the time it was offered in
that the items presented as evidence against the evidence.94 In Mallillin v. People95 we were more
Two (2) pcs. folded aluminum foil
appellants were exactly those seized during the buy-bust definite on qualifying the method of authenticating
operation. evidence through marking, viz: "(I)t would include
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment
Two (2) pcs. disposable lighters the item was picked up to the time it is offered into
evidence; in such a way that every person who touched
Also glaring was the hiatus from the time the seized
the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
items were inventoried by Bagotchay in front of Tara's
received, where it was and what happened to it while in
One (1) pc. bamboo clip house to the time these were delivered to the
the witness' possession; the condition in which it was
laboratory.1âwphi1 In his memorandum90 relative to his
received and the condition in which it was delivered to
request for the laboratory examination of the seized
the next link in the chain."96 We have scrupulously
items, P/Supt. Ernesto Agas (Agas) stated that the
One (1) pc. half blade scanned the records but found nothing that would
evidence were obtained on 21 September 2005 at
support a declaration that the seized items were
around 4:00 a.m. Bagotchay delivered the evidence to
admissible.
the laboratory, notably already marked, on the same day
One (1) pc. five hundred peso bill - as marked money at 3:05 p.m. The lapse of eleven (11) hours for the
bearing SN# GY 558660 submission of the seized items to the laboratory was
significant considering that the preservation of the chain Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires that the seized
of custody vis-a-vis the contraband ensures the integrity items be photographed in the presence of the accused or
One (1) pc. one hundred peso (₱100) bill of the evidence incriminating the accused, and relates to the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
the element of relevancy as one of the requisites for the and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
admissibility of the evidence.91 In contrast, Agas' representative each from the media and the DOJ, and
memorandum92 pertinent to his request for the any elected public official. The records of these cases,
One (1) pc. playing card plastic case86 drug/urine tests of the appellants were forwarded to the however, were bereft of any showing of these
laboratory on the same day at 9:50 a.m. or a gap of at photographs while the testimony of the prosecution
least six (6) hours only. witnesses were most notably silent on whether
Ramos, Tabuelog, and Jimenez failed to explain how photographs were actually taken as required by law.
and when the seized items were marked. Ramos stated
that after the inventory of the items the appellants were Bagotchay, who was assigned by Jimenez as the
brought to the police station for proper disposition, i.e., custodian of the seized items, was never presented by Certainly revealing from these findings was the
the booking of the appellants, and the team's preparation the prosecution to elucidate on the following important consistent noncompliance by the team with the
of their report.87 Ramos and Tabuelog executed their matters: the significant break from the inventory to the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. It must be
respective affidavits88 relative to the buy-bust operation actual marking of the items; how and when these items remembered that this provision of the law was laid down
but both failed to mention anything therein as to what were marked; the justification for the long period it took by Congress as a safety precaution against potential
had happened to the seized items after the inventory and
abuses by law enforcement agents who might fail to Even the presumption as to regularity in the performance subordinate to a mere rule of evidence allocating the
appreciate the gravity of the penalties faced by those by police officers of their official duties easily burden of evidence. Where, like here, the proof adduced
suspected to be involved in the sale, use or possession disappeared before it could find significance in these against the accused has not even overcome the
of illegal drugs.97 While it may be true that cases. Continuing accretions of case law reiterate that a presumption of innocence, the presumption of regularity
noncompliance with Sec. 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is high premium is accorded the presumption of innocence in the performance of duty could not be a factor to
not fatal to the prosecution's case provided that the over the presumption of regularity in the performance of adjudge the accused guilty of the crime charged.
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are official duty, viz:
properly preserved by the apprehending officers, this
exception will only be triggered by the existence of a
Moreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty
ground that justifies departure from the general rule.98
We have usually presumed the regularity of performance could not be properly presumed in favor of the policemen
The prosecution, however, miserably failed to prove that
of their official duties in favor of the members of buy-bust because the records were replete with indicia of their
its cases fall within the jurisprudentially recognized
teams enforcing our laws against the illegal sale of serious lapses. As a rule, a presumed fact like the
exception to the rule.
dangerous drugs. Such presumption is based on three regularity of performance by a police officer must be
fundamental reasons, namely: first, innocence, and not inferred only from an established basic fact, not plucked
wrongdoing, is to be presumed; second, an official oath out from thin air. To say it differently, it is the established
The first link in the chain of custody was undoubtedly will not be violated; and, third, a republican form of basic fact that triggers the presumed fact of regular
inherently weak which caused the other links to government cannot survive long unless a limit is placed performance. Where there is any hint of irregularity
miserably fail. The first link, it is emphasized, primarily upon controversies and certain trust and confidence committed by the police officers in arresting the accused
deals on the preservation of the identity and integrity of reposed in each governmental department or agent by and thereafter, several of which we have earlier noted,
the confiscated items, the burden of which lies with the every other such department or agent, at least to the there can be no presumption of regularity of performance
prosecution. The marking has a twin purpose, viz: first, to extent of such presumption. But the presumption is in their favor.
give the succeeding handlers of the specimen a rebuttable by affirmative evidence of irregularity or of any
reference, and second, to separate the marked evidence failure to perform a duty. Judicial reliance on the
from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence presumption despite any hint of irregularity in the
It must be noted that the chemistry report100 of De
from the moment of seizure until their disposition at the procedures undertaken by the agents of the law will thus
Guzman mentioned that the specimens submitted for
end of criminal proceedings, thereby obviating switching, be fundamentally unsound because such hint is itself
examination contained either small amount101 or
"planting," or contamination of evidence.99 Absent affirmative proof of irregularity.
traces102 on1y of white substance which tested positive
therefore the certainty that the items that were marked,
for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The informations in
subjected to laboratory examination, and presented as
Crim. Case Nos. 12852 and 12853 respectively refer to a
evidence in court were exactly those that were allegedly
The presumption of regularity of performance of official transparent cellophane sachet and two empty
seized from Arposeple, there would be no need to
duty stands only when no reason exists in the records by transparent cellophane sachets, each of which contained
proceed to evaluate the succeeding links or to determine
which to doubt the regularity of the performance of shabu weighing not more than 0.01 grams. Recent
the existence of the other elements of the charges
official duty. And even in that instance the presumption cases103 have highlighted the need to ensure the
against the appellants. Clearly, the cases for the
of regularity will not be stronger than the presumption of integrity of seized drugs in the chain of custody when
prosecution had been irreversibly lost as a result of the
innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere only a minuscule amount of drugs had been allegedly
weak first link irretrievably breaking away from the main
rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined seized from the accused. Pertinently, we have held that
chain.
right to be presumed innocent. Trial courts are instructed "[c]ourts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent
to apply this differentiation, and to always bear in mind with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt,
the following reminder issued in People v. Catalan: in evaluating cases involving minuscule amounts of
b. The presumption of drugs ... [as] they can be readily planted and tampered
[with]."104
regularity in the
x x x We remind the lower courts that the presumption of
performance of duty cannot regularity in the performance of duty could not prevail
over the stronger presumption of innocence favoring the The guilt of the appellants was
prevail in these cases. accused. Otherwise, the constitutional guarantee of the
accused being presumed innocent would be held not proven beyond reasonable
doubt. IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless they
are otherwise legally confined for another cause.

This much is clear and needs no debate: the blunders

committed by the police officers relative to the procedure Let a copy of this Decision be sent to the Director of the
in Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165, especially on the highly Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate
irregular manner by which the seized items were implementation. The Director of Corrections is directed
handled, generates serious doubt on the integrity and to report the action he has taken to this Court within five
evidentiary value of the items. Considering that the (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
seized items constitute the corpus delicti of the offenses
charged, the prosecution should have proven with moral
certainty that the items confiscated during the buy-bust
SO ORDERED.
operation were actually those presented before the RTC
during the hearing. In other words, it must be
unwaveringly established that the dangerous drug
presented in court as evidence against the accused is
the same as that seized from him in the first place.105
Under the principle that penal laws are strictly construed
against the government, stringent compliance with Sec.
21, R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR is fully justified.106 The
breaches in the procedure provided in Sec. 21, R.A. No.
9165 committed by the police officers, and left
unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate
against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
against the appellants as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the corpus delicti had been compromised.107

To recapitulate, the records of these cases were bereft of

any showing that the prosecution had discharged its
burden to: (1) overcome the presumption of innocence
which appellants enjoy; (2) prove the corpus delicti of the
crime; (3) establish an unbroken chain of custody of the
seized drugs; and (4) offer any explanation why the
provisions of Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165 were not complied
with. This Court is thus constrained to acquit the
appellants based on reasonable doubt.108

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we REVERSE

and SET ASIDE the 3 October 2011 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00865.
Accused-appellants Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez and
Jhunrel Sulogaol y Datu are hereby ACQUITTED of the
crimes charged for failure of the prosecution to prove
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered