SECOND DIVISION

July 17, 2019

G.R. No. 242947

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
MARIO MANABAT Y DUMAGAY, Accused-Appellant

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J.:

Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by accused-appellant Mario Manabat y

Dumagay (accused-appellant Manabat) assailing the Decision2 dated August 2, 2018
(assailed Decision) of the Court of Appeals (CA) Special Twenty Third Division in CA-
G.R. CR--HC No. 01781-MIN, which affirmed the Decision3 dated September 5, 2017
of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 8 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos.
18353 and 18354, finding accused-appellant Manabat guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise
known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,"4 as amended.

The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings

As narrated by the CA in the assailed Decision, the essential facts of the instant case
are as follows:

The accusatory portion of the Informations under which the accused-

appellant was charged reads:

Criminal Case No. 18353

That on June 17, 2013, at 6:30 o'clock in the evening, more

or less, infront (sic) [of] ABC Printing Press, Miputak, Dipolog
City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, knowing fully well that
unauthorized sale and distribution of dangerous drugs is
punishable by law, without legal authority to sell the same,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell,
distribute and deliver to a poseur-buyer one (1) small
transparent plastic sachet of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, more popularly known as "Shabu"
approximately weighing 0.2079 gram, after receiving marked
Five Hundred Peso bill bearing Serial No. TMS 18077 as
 payment therefore (sic). Subsequently, said marked money
and the sum of One Hundred Fifty Pesos (P150.00), Philippine
Currency which are proceeds of his illegal trade were
recovered from his possession together with one (1) unit
Nokia 1280 which he used in his illegal trade.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 18354

That on June 17, 2013 at 6:30 o'clock in the evening, more or

less, infront (sic) of ABC Printing Press, Miputak, Dipolog City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, knowing fully well that
unauthorized possession and control of dangerous drug is
punishable by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession and control nine (9) pieces
small transparent plastic sachet of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, more popularly known as "Shabu", a form of
dangerous drug, approximately weighing a total of 1.8515
grams, without legal authority to possess the same, in gross
(v)iolation of Section 11, Par. 3, Article II of R.A. 9165.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.

Thereafter, joint pre-trial and trial of Criminal Case Nos. 18353 and 18354
ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

To prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution presented the
testimonies of the following witnesses, namely: PCI Anne Aimee T.
Pilayre, POl Gilbert Daabay, PO3 Michael Angcon, PO2 Lord Jericho N.
Barral [(PO2 Barral)] and SPO2 Roy P. Vertudes [(SPO2 Vertudes)]. Their
respective testimonies as summed up by the RTC are as follows:

PCI Anne Aimee T. Pilayre is a Forensic Chemical Officer of

the Z.N. Provincial Crime Laboratory Office (ZNPCLO).

On June 22, 2013, at 10:25 pm, her office received a written

request from PNP Dipolog for laboratory examination and
weighing of ten (10) small transparent plastic sachets
containing white crystalline granules believed to
be shabu marked MM-01 to MM-09 and MMBB-01, all dated
June 17, 2013. The items were received by PO1 Gilbert
Daabay, the officer of the day, endorsed to the evidence
custodian and turned over to her for examination on June 18,
2013 at 7:30 in the morning. They also received a request for
drug test on the urine samples from Mario Manabat.

She scrutinized the markings on the specimens and the letter-

request to make sure that they coincide. She conducted
physical test (i.e. ocular inspection of the specimens, taking
the net weight of the specimen), the chemical test by taking a
representative sample (3%) from each of the specimen and
spotted with a reagent known as Simon's 1, Simon's 2 and
Simon's 3 to determine the presence of dangerous drug. The
specimen from the ten (10) sachets turned deep blue in color.
This indicates that that ' (sic) all sachets are positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Finally, she
conducted confirmatory test where representative samples of
the three sachets were spotted into a thin layer
chromatographic plate. She prepared Chemistry Report No. D-
36-2013 which states that "Qualitative examination on the
above submitted specimen A-1 to A-10 gave POSITIVE
result to the tests for the presence of
Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug".

The remainder of the samples were then placed back to the

original container and sealed.

xxxx

POl Gilbert Daabay is a regular member of the PNP assigned

as Officer-of-the-Day at the Z.N. Provincial Crime Laboratory
Office (ZNPCLO).

On June 17, 2013, he received requests for laboratory

examination and weighing and accompanying items involving
Mario Manabat delivered personally by SPO(2) Rey (sic)
Vertudes at 22:25 HRS. He took the gross weights of each
item and recorded them on the logbook. He placed the
specimen and documents inside an envelope.

He also received a request for drug test. After Mario filled up

the drug consent form, Daabay accompanied the suspect to
the comfort room to get his urine sample. The urine sample
was in a bottle with control number then placed in the
refrigerator.

At 7:30 of the following day, he turned over the received

items to the Forensic Chemist. The turnover of evidence to
Pilayre was duly recorded in the logbook.

PO3 Michael Angcon is the Evidence Custodian of Z.N.

Provincial Crime Laboratory Office (ZNPCLO) responsible for
the safekeeping of all evidence and drug specimens submitted
to their office for laboratory examination.

He testified that right after Pilayre conducted laboratory

examination of drug specimens; he received the drug
specimens and documents in the instant case. The same
pieces of evidence were released to Pilayre for her Court
duties on January 23, 2014.
The said turnover of evidence from Pilayre to Angcon (for
safekeeping) and back to Pilayre (for Court duties) were all
duly recorded in the logbook.

PO2 Lord Jericho N. Barral is a regular member of the PNP

assigned at Dipolog City Police Station designated as member
of the City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force
(CAIDSOTF).

On June 10, 2013, he received information through a text

message from a confidential informant (CI) that a certain alias
Mario is engaged in the selling of prohibited drugs in Estaka,
Miputak and other places in Dipolog City. He and SPO(2) Roy
Vertudes referred the matter to the Chief of Police, PSupt
Joven Rendon Parcon, who instructed [them] to conduct [a]
buy bust operation. They complied with such directive. They
monitored alias Mario's activities and planned to buy a sachet
of shabu from the suspect.

On June 17, 2013, they decided to conduct [a] buybust

operation because alias Mario arrived from Ozamis and he had
already (sic) stocks of shabu. They instructed the CI to
negotiate with Mario with Barral acting as the poseur buyer.
The CI agreed. At around 6 pm, the CI texted that he and
Mario are together and that Mario accepted the request. They
agreed to meet at ABC Printing Press.

Barral proceeded to the place on board his motorcycle while

Vertudes, who acted as back-up, followed in his four-wheeled
tinted vehicle. Barral positioned near the entrance of the
printing press while V ertudes was near El Garaje
establishment, a few meter (sic) from the printing press.

At about 6:30 pm, the CI and Mario arrived on board a

motorcab. The CI introduced Barral to Mario as the buyer of
shabu. After a short conversation, Mario agreed to sell to
Barral. Barral handed a P500 bill marked money to Mario, who
received the same and in turn handed to Barral a sachet
of shabu from inside a small container in his pocket. Mario,
placed the P500 inside his wallet. Upon receiving the shabu,
[Barral] immediately held Mario. Vertudes came and assisted
Barral in the arrest of Mario. They informed Mario that they
were police officers of Dipolog City Police Station. Mario was
told of his constitutional rights in Visayan dialect.

They called for witnesses to the inventory of items recovered

from Mario. Representatives from DOJ, media and the
barangay of Miputak came. Barral conducted body search on
Mario in the presence of the witnesses. After the search,
Mario revealed his full name. Confiscated from Mario's
possession were nine (9) pieces small transparent plastic
sachets in triangular shape containing white crystalline
granules, one (1) piece P500 bill (marked money), P150
proceeds money, one (1) unit Nokia cellphone. Barral turned
over the one (1) piece small sachet bought by Barral from
Mario. Vertudes made markings on the confiscated items. He
also prepared the certificate of inventory and signed by the
witnesses (sic). The sachets of shabu were marked as MM-01
to MM-09 with date and initial (sic) and the one (1) piece buy-
bust shabu was marked BB-01. Photographs were taken
during the conduct of inventory.

In Court, Barral identified Mario Manabat as well as the items

recovered from the latter.

xxxx

SPO2 Roy P. Vertudes is a regular member of the PNP and

presently assigned at the Regional Police Holding
Administrative Unit in Zamboanga City. He corroborated the
testimony of Barral that they received information that a
certain Mario Manabat is engaged in selling shabu in Estaka,
Miputak and other parts in Dipolog City. They informed the
Chief of Police, who in turn instructed them to conduct buy
bust operation.

They instructed the CI to contact to (sic) as soon as Mario has

available stocks of shabu. On June 17, 2013, the CI sent a
text message that Mario has arrived from Ozamis City and he
has stocks of shabu. x x x The CI informed that he and Mario
will meet in front of ABC Printing Press in , Gonzales and
Malvar streets. With that information, Barral proceeded to the
area on board his motorcycle while Vertudes drove his four-
wheeled tinted vehicle. Vertudes parked near El Garaje. He
did not alight from the vehicle. At 6:30 pm, a passenger
motorcab arrived. Two male persons disembarked, one of
them is the CI. Vertudes saw Barral, the CI and another male
person conversing about 10 to 15 meters from him. Then, he
saw Barral held (sic) the other male person which signifies
(sic) that the transaction was consummated. He rushed to the
scene and assisted Barral in handcuffing Mario. He did not see
the exchange of items as it was already dark.

Barral introduced himself to Mario as a police officer and

informed him that he was arrested for selling illegal drugs.
Barral also informed Mario of his constitutional rights in
Visayan dialect. Mario had no reaction. After being
handcuffed, the witnesses were called. Merlinda Tenorio of
DOJ, Edwin Bation of media, barangay captain Janus Yu and
barangay councilor Epifanio Woo arrived. In their presence,
Barral conducted body search on Mario. Items recovered by
Barral from Mario's possession were turned over to Vertudes,
the designated inventory officer and custodial officer. Upon
Mario's request, the wallet was returned to him. The
 recovered items (10 sachets of shabu, P500 bill, Nokia
cellphone and P150 proceeds money) were marked with
Vertudes' initial and date of arrest. Pictures were taken. Mario
was then brought to the ZaNorte Medical Center for routine
medical checkup then to the police station. From the time of
the inventory until Mario was brought to the police station,
Vertudes kept custody of the drug specimens and other
recovered items.

At the police station, he prepared a request for laboratory

examination and weighing and request for drug test. He
brought the letter with the items and the accused to the PNP
Crime Laboratory.

In Court, Vertudes identified Mario Manabat, the items

recovered from him and other documents.

Version of the Defense

The defense, for its part, presented Mario D. Manabat as [its] sole
witness. The gist of his testimony is as follows:

Mario D. Manabat (42 years old, widower, Third Year High

School level, a detention prisoner of the Dipolog City Jail and
a resident of Estaka, Dipolog City) testified that there was no
buy bust operation conducted against him as he was just
grappled by persons near Casa Jose in the afternoon of June
17, 2013. Thereafter, he was brought to the boulevard then
to the Fish Port then to the ABC Printing Press, the alleged
place of arrest.

xxxx

He recalls that in the morning of June 17, 2013 (a Monday) he

was at home fixing a leaking water pipe. Then he cooked and
fed his children. At 1 pm, he went to church to pray for his
sick child. He stayed in church for an hour and then went to
the market to buy rice and viand (pancit). From there, he
rode a motorcab going home and instructed the driver to pass
by Casa Jose to see his friend Jonel Sebe, who is also a
security guard. While on the way to Casa Jose, he instructed
the motorcab driver to slow down as he would check if Jonel
was there. While still in the motorcab, a motorcycle (with two
(2) riders whom he does not know) blocked their way.
Another motorcycle came with two (2) back riders. They
alighted and pulled Mario out of the motorcab. Mario did not
alight from the motorcab but a person pointed a gun at him
and told him that he is a police officer and that he should not
be scared. For said reason, Mario alighted. He described the
police officer as big and tall and he identified said person as
Police Officer Vertudes. He was boarded to (sic) a blue easy-
ride multicab. He was handcuffed.
 He was brought to the boulevard, particularly in the barbecue
area. He was seated behind the driver. There were five
persons inside the multicab. While on the way to boulevard,
he was asked if he knows a friend or a politician who is using
shabu. He replied he does not know anyone because he does
not know about it. He was brought to [Barra!] near the gate
of the Fish Port at about 3 pm. He was frisked and his short
pants removed. His wallet and cellphone were taken. They
stayed there for more or less 2 hours. He was then brought to
ABC Printing Press on board a military jeep at 6 pm with three
persons accompanying him. Upon arrival at ABC Printing
Press, he was seated and a table from El Garaje
establishment was installed. They returned the wallet in his
pocket.

He recalls that there were other persons who arrived after 30

minutes. He was searched. Upon their arrival, Mario was
searched by a police officer whom he later knew as Officer
Jericho Barral. He took his wallet and cellphone. He was
surprised that they took "something contained in a
cellophane", nine (9) in total. They also took P500 from his
pocket, which he denies owning. He insists that he has only
P70 in his possession.

He was shocked upon seeing the nine (9) items displayed on

the table. He told the person whom they called "Chairman"
that those were not his and he had nothing to do with it. The
"Chairman" did not reply. Mario told the same thing to the
woman but she did not reply too.

He recalls that it was already twilight when the pictures were

taken from him. The arresting officer told him of his rights. He
was told that he could secure a lawyer but there was no
lawyer during the search and inventory. He was asked where
he got the items but he denies (sic) owning them. They were
placed on him when the vehicle was running. He was brought
to the police station. 5

The Ruling of the RTC

After trial on the merits, in its Decision6 dated September 5, 2017, the RTC convicted
accused-appellant Manabat of the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the said
Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as

follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 18353, the Court finds the accused MARIO
MAN AB AT y Dumagay GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge
for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165 for selling 0.2079 gram of shabu,
and sentences him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of FIVE
Hundred Thousand (₱500,000.00) pesos;
 2. In Criminal Case No. 18354, the Court finds the same accused
MARIO MANABAT y Dumagay, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
violation Sec. 11, Art. II, RA 9165 for possessing 1.8515 grams of shabu,
hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Twelve
(12) years and one days as minimum to Twenty (2) years as maximum
and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (₱300,000.00);

The shabu, cash money, and cellphone used in the commission of the
offense are hereby forfeited in favor of the government to be disposed in
accordance with the prescribed rules.

Moreover, he is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 2 of the

Indeterminate Sentence Law.

SO ORDERED.7

In sum, the R TC ruled that the evidence on record was sufficient to convict accused-
appellant Manabat. The R TC did not give credence to accused-appellant Manabat's
defense of frame-up as it deemed the same self-serving and unsubstantiated. It held
that the defense of a frame-up could not stand against the positive testimonies of
PO2 Barral and SPO2 Vertudes whose testimonies enjoy the presumption of
regularity. The RTC ultimately held that the prosecution sufficiently discharged its
burden of proving accused-appellant Manabat's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 8

Feeling aggrieved, accused-appellant Manabat appealed to the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

In the assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC's conviction of accused-appellant

Manabat, holding that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the crimes
charged.

The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the instant appeal

is DENIED. The Decision dated 05 September 2017 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 8, Dipolog City, in Criminal Case Nos. 18353 and
18354 is AFFIRMED.9

After carefully reviewing the records of the case, the CA found that:

the prosecution effectively established compliance with the chain of

custody rule. Verily, the prosecution, through testimonial and
documentary evidence, was able to account [for] the continuous
whereabouts of the subject saches of shabu, from the time they were
seized during the buy-bust operation up to the time it was presented
before the court a quo as proof of the corpus delicti. 10

Hence, the instant appeal.

The Issue
For resolution of the Court is the sole issue of whether the RTC and CA erred in
convicting accused-appellant Manabat of the crimes charged.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is meritorious. The Court acquits accused-appellant Manabat for failure of
the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Accused-appellant Manabat was charged with the crimes of illegal sale and possession
of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of
Article II of RA 9165.

In order to convict a person charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution is required to prove the
following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 11

On the other hand, illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II
of RA 9165 has the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or
object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is
not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the
drug. 12

In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State bears not only the burden of proving
these elements, but also of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. In
drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the
law. 13 While it is true that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven
procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors, 14 the
law nevertheless also requires strict compliance with procedures laid down by it to
ensure that rights are safeguarded.

In this connection, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, 15 the applicable law at the time
of the commission of the alleged crimes, lays down the procedure that police
operatives must follow to maintain the integrity of the confiscated drugs used as
evidence. The provision requires that: (1) the seized items be inventoried and
photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical
inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the
accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official,
(c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the
Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

This must be so because with the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need
for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with
which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of
unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals,
the possibility of abuse is great. 16

Section 21 of RA 9165 further requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical

inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the same immediately after
seizure and confiscation. The said inventory must be done in the presence of the
aforementioned required witness, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of
the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The phrase "immediately after seizure and
confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were
intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of
apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be
done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team. 17 In this connection, this also means
that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the
time of apprehension - a requirement that can easily be complied with by the
buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a
planned activity. Verily, a buy-bust team normally has enough time to gather and
bring with it the said witnesses.

As held in the fairly recent case of People v. Tomawis, 18 the Court explained that the
presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the
inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at
this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their
presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the
source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug, viz.:

The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public
elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting,
contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court
in People v. Mendoza19, without the insulating presence of the
representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official
during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching,
"planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-
busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and
credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was
evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the
trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.20

The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the
inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest.
It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most
needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that
would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the
seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the
presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual
defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able testify that the buy-
bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their
presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.

The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of

arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so - and "calling
them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and
photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already
been finished - does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these
witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.

To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and
confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time
 of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the
intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the
inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs
"immediately after seizure and confiscation".21 (Emphasis in the original)

Based from the foregoing, the Court holds that the buy-bust operation
was not conducted in accordance with law.

First, it is not disputed whatsoever that the witnesses were called and eventually
arrived at the scene of the crime only  after  the accused-appellant was
already apprehended by PO2 Barral. On cross-examination, PO2 Barral readily
admitted that during the apprehension of accused-appellant Manabat, the witnesses
were not present:

Q You mean to say that during the arrest, the witnesses did not arrive
yet?

A Not yet, sir.22

Further, as testified by SPO2 Vertudes, the buy-bust team did not contact the
witnesses at all before the team arrived at the place of the buy-bust operation. The
witnesses were contacted only after accused-appellant Manabat was already arrested
and handcuffed:

Q Before you proceeded to ABC Printing Press you did not yet contact the
witnesses from the DOJ, the media and from the elected officials of the
barangay right?

A Not yet, sir.

Q Only after Mario was arrested and handcuffed that you did contact
those witnesses, correct?

A Yes, sir.23

In fact, the Court notes that the prosecution offered conflicting testimonies as regards
the time of arrival of the witnesses.

According to PO2 Barral, the witnesses arrived "[m]ore or less ten minutes" 24 after
they were called. To the contrary, when SPO2 Vertudes was asked as to when the
witnesses arrived, he first answered "three to five minutes sir."25 But when pressed as
to the veracity of his answer, considering that the buy-bust was conducted on a
Sunday, SPO2 Vertudes eventually admitted that the arrival of the witnesses was
completed "[f]ifteen to thirty minutes. "26

Further creating doubt as to the presence of the witnesses during the buy-bust
operation is the admission of PO2 Barral on cross-examination that the photographs
of the inventory do not show the presence of the witnesses, except for Councilor
Epifanio Woo:

Q The witnesses are not shown in these pictures during the search, right?

A No, sir.
 Q All these pictures are also taken close up?

A Yes, sir.

Q No witnesses are shown in this picture, right?

A None, sir.

xxxx

Q In the pictures marked as Exhibits "X-9" and "X-16", there is a person

with fatigue short pants?

A Yes, sir.

Q You know who is this person?

A Yes, sir. Councilor Epifania Woo. He is also shown here.27

If the witnesses were indeed present during the entire photographing and inventory
of the evidence, obviously, it would have been easy and effortless on the part of the
buy-bust team to take photographs of the other witnesses. Yet, this was not done,
creating some doubt in the mind of the Court as to the presence of the required
witnesses during the buy-bust operation.

The apprehending team cannot justify its failure to ensure the availability of the
witnesses during the apprehension of accused-appellant Manabat, considering that
the buy-bust operation was conducted seven days after the day it received
information about accused-appellant and was instructed to conduct the buy-bust
operation. Simply stated, the apprehending team had more than enough time to
ensure that all the mandatory procedures for the conduct of the buy-bust operation
would be sufficiently met.

Second, the Certificate of Inventory that was produced by the prosecution was
irregularly executed.

To reiterate, Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that the copies of the inventory should
be signed by all the following persons: (a) accused or his/her representative or
counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a
representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The Certificate of Inventory28 itself reveals that the document was not

signed by accused-appellant Manabat or by his counsel or
representative. Upon perusal of the records of the instant case, the prosecution did
not acknowledge such defect. Nor did the prosecution provide any explanation
whatsoever as to why accused-appellant Manabat was not able to sign the Certificate
of Inventory.

Concededly, Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 provides that "noncompliance of these

requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items." For this
provision to be effective, however, the prosecution must first (1) recognize any lapse
on the part of the police officers and (2) be able to justify the same. 29 In this case,
the prosecution neither recognized, much less tried to justify, the police
officers' deviation from the procedure contained in Section 21, RA 9165.

Third, the Court notes that the marking of the plastic sachets allegedly recovered was
irregularly done.

Under the 1999 Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Manual,30 the conduct of
buy-bust operations requires the following:

Anti-Drug Operational Procedures

Chapter V. Specific Rules

xxxx

B. Conduct of Operation: (As far as practicable, all operations must be

officer led)

1. Buy-Bust Operation - [I]n the conduct of buy-bust operation, the

following are the procedures to be observed:

a. Record time of jump-off in unit's logbook;

b. Alertness and security shall at all times be observed:

c. Actual and timely coordination with the nearest PNP territorial units
must be made;

d. Area security and dragnet or pursuit operation must be provided[;]

e. Use of necessary and reasonable force only in case of suspect's

resistance[;]

f. If buy-bust money is dusted with ultra violet powder make sure that
suspect ge[t] hold of the same and his palm/s contaminated with the
powder before giving the pre-arranged signal and arresting the suspects;

g. In pre-positioning of the team members, the designated arresting

elements must clearly and actually observe the negotiation/transaction
between suspect and the poseur-buyer;

h. Arrest suspect in a defensive manner anticipating possible resistance

with the use of deadly weapons which maybe concealed in his body,
vehicle or in a place within arms' reach;

i. After lawful arrest, search the body and vehicle, if any, of the suspect
for other concealed evidence or deadly weapon;

j. Appraise suspect of his constitutional rights loudly and clearly after

having been secured with handcuffs;
 k. Take actual inventory of the seized evidence by means of weighing
and/or physical counting, as the case may be;

1. Prepare a detailed receipt of the confiscated evidence for issuance to

the possessor (suspect) thereof;

m. The seizing officer (normally the poseur-buyer) and the

evidence custodian must mark the evidence with their initials and
also indicate the date, time and place the evidence was
confiscated/seized;

n. Take photographs of the evidence while in the process of taking the

inventory, especially during weighing, and if possible under existing
conditions, the registered weight of the evidence on the scale must be
focused by the camera; and

o. Only the evidence custodian shall secure and preserve the evidence in
an evidence bag or in appropriate container and thereafter deliver the
same to the PNP CLG for laboratory examination. 31

In the instant case, as incontrovertibly revealed by the photographs of the plastic

sachets allegedly retrieved from accused-appellant Manabat, only the date and initials
of the seizing officers were inscribed on the specimens. The time and place of the
buy-bust operation were not indicated in the markings, in clear contravention
of the PNP's own set of procedures for the conduct of buy-bust operations.

At this juncture, it is well to point-out that while the RTC and CA were correct in
stating that denial is an inherently weak defense, it grievously erred in using the
same principle to convict accused-appellant Manabat. Both the RTC and CA
overlooked the long-standing legal tenet that the starting point of every criminal
prosecution is that the accused has the constitutional right to be presumed
innocent. 32 And this presumption of innocence is overturned only when the
prosecution has discharged its burden of proof in criminal cases and has proven the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, 33 by proving each and every element
of the crime charged in the information, to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or
for any other crime necessarily included therein. 34 Differently stated, there must exist
no reasonable doubt as to the existence of each and every element of the crime to
sustain a conviction.

It is worth emphasizing that this burden of proof never shifts. Indeed, the

accused need not present a single piece of evidence in his defense if the State has not
discharged its onus. The accused can simply rely on his right to be presumed
innocent.

In this connection, the prosecution therefore, in cases involving dangerous

drugs, always has the burden of proving compliance with the procedure outlined in
Section 21. As the Court stressed in People v. Andaya:35

x x x We should remind ourselves that we cannot presume that the

accused committed the crimes they have been charged with.1âшphi1 The
State must fully establish that for us. If the imputation of ill motive to
the lawmen is the only means of impeaching them, then that would be
the end of our dutiful vigilance to protect our citizenry from false arrests
 and wrongful incriminations. We are aware that there have been in the
past many cases of false arrests and wrongful incriminations, and that
should heighten our resolve to strengthen the ramparts of judicial
scrutiny.

Nor should we shirk from our responsibility of protecting the

liberties of our citizenry just because the lawmen are shielded by
the presumption of the regularity of their performance of
duty. The presumed regularity is nothing but a purely evidentiary
tool intended to avoid the impossible and time-consuming task of
establishing every detail of the performance by officials and
functionaries of the Government. Conversion by no means defeat
the much stronger and much firmer presumption of innocence in
favor of every person whose life, property and liberty comes
under the risk of forfeiture on the strength of a false accusation of
committing some crime.36 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

To stress, the accused can rely on his right to be presumed innocent. It is thus
immaterial, in this case or in any other cases involving dangerous drugs, that the
accused put forth a weak defense.

To reiterate, breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21 committed by the

police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a
finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the corpus delicti would have been compromised.37 As the Court
explained in People v. Reyes:38

Under the last paragraph of Section 21(a), Article II of the IRRofR.A. No.
9165, a saving mechanism has been provided to ensure that not every
case of non-compliance with the procedures for the preservation of the
chain of custody will irretrievably prejudice the Prosecution's case against
the accused. To warrant the application of this saving mechanism,
however, the Prosecution must recognize the lapse or lapses, and
justify or explain them. Such justification or explanation would be
the basis for applying the saving mechanism. Yet, the Prosecution
did not concede such lapses, and did not even tender any token
justification or explanation for them. The failure to justify or explain
underscored the doubt and suspicion about the integrity of the
evidence of the corpus delicti. With the chain of custody having been
compromised, the accused deserves acquittal.39

Lastly, it was an error for the RTC to convict accused-appellant Manabat by relying on
the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties supposedly extended in
favor of the police officers. The presumption of regularity in the performance of
duty cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused.40 Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally
enshrined right to be presumed innocent.41 As the Court, in People v.
Catalan,42 reminded the lower courts:

Both lower courts favored the members of the buy-bust team with the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty, mainly
 because the accused did not show that they had ill motive behind his
entrapment.

We hold that both lower courts committed gross error in relying on the
presumption of regularity.

Presuming that the members of the buy-bust team regularly performed

their duty was patently bereft of any factual and legal basis. We remind
the lower courts that the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duty could not prevail over the stronger
presumption of innocence favoring the accused. Otherwise, the
constitutional guarantee of the accused being presumed innocent
would be held subordinate to a mere rule of evidence allocating
the burden of evidence. Where, like here, the proof adduced against
the accused has not even overcome the presumption of innocence, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not be a factor
to adjudge the accused guilty of the crime charged.

Moreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty could

not be properly presumed in favor of the policemen because the
records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. As a rule,
a presumed fact like the regularity of performance by a police
officer must be inferred only from an established basic fact, not
plucked out from thin air. To say it differently, it is the established
basic fact that triggers the presumed fact of regular performance. Where
there is any hint of irregularity committed by the police officers in
arresting the accused and thereafter, several of which we have earlier
noted, there can be no presumption of regularity of performance in their
favor. 43 (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, the presumption of regularity cannot stand because of the buy-bust

team's disregard of the established procedures under Section 21 of RA 9165 and the
PNP's own Drug Enforcement Manual.

In sum, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the apprehending
team's deviation from the rules laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165. The integrity and
evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have thus been compromised. In light of this,
accused-appellant Manabat must perforce be acquitted.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision

dated August 2, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01781-MIN is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant MARIO
MANABAT y DUMAGAY is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged on the ground of
reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention
unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be
issued immediately.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent of the San Ramon Prison
and Penal Farm, Zamboanga City, for immediate implementation. The said
Superintendent is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from
receipt of this Decision the action he has taken.

SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), J. Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.

Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official leave.

Footnotes
1
 See Notice of Appeal dated September 3, 2018; rollo, pp. 19-21.
2
 Rollo, pp. 3-18. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas with
Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Walter S. Ong concurring.
3
 CA rollo, pp. 32-40. Penned by Presiding Judge Ric S. Bastasa.
4
 Titled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
5
 Rollo, pp. 4-10.
6
 CA rollo, pp. 32-40. Penned by Presiding Judge Ric S. Bastasa.
7
 Id. at 40.
8
 Id. at 38-39.
9
 Rollo, p. 18.
10
 Id. at 13-14.
11
 People v. Opiana, 750 Phil. 140, 147 (2015).
12
 People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 198875 (Notice), June 4, 2014.
13
 People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441, 450-451 (2013).
14
 People v. Mantalaba, 669 Phil. 461,471 (2011).
15
 The said section reads as follows:

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or

Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
 photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]
16
 People v. Santos, 562 Phil. 458,471 (2007), citing People v. Tan, 401 Phil. 259, 273
(2000).
17
 IRR of RA 9165, Art. II, Sec. 21 (a).
18
 G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018, accessed at
<http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64241>.
19
 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
20
 Id. at 764.
21
 Supra note 18.
22
 TSN dated October 25, 2016, p. 16.
23
 TSN dated March 2, 2017, p. 21.
24
 TSN dated October 25, 2016, p. 16.
25
 TSN dated March 2, 2017, p. 22.
26
 Id.
27
 TSN dated October 25, 2016, pp. 18-19.
28
 Records, p. 96.
29
 See People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 461 (2015).
30
 Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Manual, PNPM-D-O-3-1-99 [NG], the
precursor anti-illegal drug operations manual prior to the 2010 and 2014 AIDSOTF
Manual.
31
 Id; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
32
 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 14(2). "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved x x x."
33
 The Rules of Court provides that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean
such a degree of proof as excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty.
Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in
an unprejudiced mind. (RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Sec. 2)
34
 See People v. Belocura, 693 Phil. 476, 503-504 (2012).
35
 745 Phil. 237 (2014).
36
 Id. at 250-251.
37
 See People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 350 (2015).
38
 797 Phil. 671 (2016).
39
 Id. at 690. (Emphasis supplied)
40
 People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 770 (2014).
41
 People v. Catalan, 699 Phil. 603, 621 (2012).
42
 699 Phil. 603 (2012).
43
 Id. at 621.