FID

SUPREME cc 1.:RT r:'C Tl'!" .-1.1 .. ,,..,.,,_,r.-,;:

PU!LI(; •·l···>
-- ·-..-r·;

......
TIME: '6 • ·w

~epublic of tbe llbilippine%

~upreme QCourt
;!fflanila

SECOND DIVISION

JOEL A. LARGO G.R. No. 201293

Petitioner,
Present:

- versus -~
CARPIO, Chairperson,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
CAGUIOA,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES REYES, J., JR.,
Respondent. LAZARO-JAVIER, JJ.

Promulgated:

1 9 JU N_20J_9
X----------------------------------------------------------~~~~~---- X
DECISION

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

THE CASE

This petition assails the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals

in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 00940 1 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Joel
A. Largo'':

1
Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio and concurred in by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos
Santos and Assodate Justke Eduru-do B. Peralta, Jc. I
Decision 2 G.R. No. 201293

1. Decision2 dated November 30, 2010 affirming petitioner's conviction

in Criminal Case No. CBU-75585 for violation of Section 11, Article
II of Republic Act 9165; and
2. Resolution 3 dated February 29, 2012 denying petitioner's motion
for reconsideration.

THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

The Charge

In Criminal Case No. CBU-75585, pet1t10ner Joel A. Largo was

charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (RA
9165) under the following Information, viz:

That on or about the 28 th day of November 2005, at 1:00 o'clock in

the afternoon in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without
authority of law, with deliberate intent, did then and there have in
his possession, use and control one ( 1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic packet containing 0.05 gram of white crystalline substance
locally known as "Shabu" containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LA W. 4

On arraignment, petitioner pleaded "not guilty". Trial ensued.

Barangay Tanods Vicente Bosque and Venancio Catalan of Brgy.
Ermita, Cebu City testified for the prosecution. On the other hand, appellant
Joel Largo and Celia Dalugdog* testified for the defense.

The Prosecution's Evidence

On November 28, 2005, around 1 o'clock in the afternoon, Barangay

Tanods Bosque, Catalan, and three other barangay tanods were patrolling the
Carbon Public Market in Cebu City when a cargo handler informed them that
people at the second floor of Unit 3 were engaged in a pot session. 5 When they
arrived in the area, people who saw them scampered away. One of them ran
toward Barangay Tanod Bosque. It was petitioner Joel A. Largo. When the
latter realized he was heading toward a barangay tanod, he backed off. Then
he flicked away a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
Barangay Tanod Bosque arrested him and retrieved the plastic sachet from the
ground. He held on to the plastic sachet until they reached the police station. 6
There, he turned it over to Police Investigator SPO 1 Romeo Abellana who
marked it "JLA".

2
Rollo, pp. 39-47.
3
Id at 63-64. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos and concuJTed in by Associate Justice
Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio Valenzuela.
4

5
6
Record, p. I.
* "Dalogdog" in some parts of Rollo and Records.
Joint-Affidavit of Arresting Officers, Original Record, p.11.
TSN of Vicente Bosque, December 5, 2006, pp. 8-14.
I
Decision 3 G.R. No. 201293

Barangay Tanod Catalan brought the plastic sachet to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for examination. P/Sr. Insp. David Alexander Patriana who
examined the contents of the plastic sachet confirmed that they tested positive
for methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", a dangerous drug. 7

The prosecution presented in evidence the letter request for laboratory

examination8 and Chemistry Report No. D-1806-2005. 9

The Defense's Evidence

Petitioner testified that on November 27, 2005 he was waiting for a

jeepney ride in front of the University of San Jose Recolletos Bldg. when
barangay tanods of Ermita, Cebu City accosted and picked him up. When he
asked why he was being accosted, the barangay tanods replied that Barangay
Captain Imok Rupinta of Ermita, Cebu City wanted to talk to him. They
brought him to the barangay hall where he got detained. He was neither
investigated nor informed of his constitutional rights. Worse, the supposed
Barangay Captain Rupinta never arrived.

Around 8 o'clock in the evening of the same day, a certain Erik Larrubis
y Ripe was also brought in and detained in the same cell. Like him, Erik did
not know why the barangay tanods arrested and jailed him.

On the following day, Virgilio Cartilla y Carteciano of Mantalongon,

Dalaguete, Cebu was also brought in and detained. All three of them were
clueless why they were being detained in the same cell.

On November 28, 2005, around 2:30 in the afternoon, they were

brought to the Police Station 5, M.C. Briones St., Cebu City supposedly for
further investigation but the same did not take place.

In the afternoon of November 29, 2005, they were taken to the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Capitol, Cebu City for inquest proceedings. Through
a blotter report, Io he came to know that they had been separately charged with
violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 or illegal possession of dangerous
drugs.I I ~

Celia Dalugdog, the mother-in-law of petitioner's brother, testified that

on November 27, 2005, petitioner asked permission to go home to Basak,
Cebu City. He wanted to bring home milk for his child. On the following day,
she learned of petitioner's arrest so she visited him in his detention cell.I 2

7
Chemistry Report, November 29, 2005, Original Record, p. 102.
8
Record, p. 101.
9
Id. at 102.
0
' Id. at 18.
11
Counter-Affidavit of Joel A. Largo, Original Record, p. 124-127.
12
Affidavit of Cecilia Dalugdog, Original Record, p. 123.
)
Decision 4 G.R. No. 201293

The defense presented the following documentary evidence: Resolution

of Prosecutor Agan recommending the dismissal of the case; 13 Affidavit of
Celia Dalugdog; 14 Ce1iification of Police Blotter regarding the arrest of Joel
Largo; 15 and Counter-Affidavit of Joel Largo. 16

The Trial Court's Decision

By Judgment dated April 4, 2008, 17 the trial court found petitioner

guilty as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and one day to fifteen
years and fine of P350,000.00, viz:

WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused duly p:-oven beyond

reasonable doubt, the Court sentences the accused to suffer an
imprisonment ranging from twelve ( 12) years and one (1) day to
fifteen (15) years and to pay Php 350,000.00 as fine.

The trial comi gave full credence to the testimonies ofBarangay Tanods
Vicente Bosque and Venancio Catalan and held that although the chain-of-
custody rule was not strictly observed, the integrity of the confiscated sachet
of shabu was duly preserved, and its evidentiary value, remained intact.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration which the trial court denied.

The Appeal

On appeal, petitioner faulted the trial court for finding him guilty of the
offense charged despite the following alleged infirmities: ( 1) the prosecution
dismally failed to establish the identity and chain of custody of the corpus
delicti; (2) his warrantless aiTest was invalid because it was not proved that he
was caught inflagrante delicto; and (3) the testimony ofBrgy. Tanod Bosque
that on the same day petitioner was arrested, the former has altogether three
successive warrantless arrests in Carbon Public Market with exactly 30-
minute intervals.

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) through
Assistant Solicitor General Roman G. Del Rosario and Associate Solicitor
Ma. Felina C.B. Yu countered petitioner's warrantless arrest was valid in view
of the urgent need for the arresting officers to promptly apprehend people
engaged in illegal drug trade and illegal drug use. Consequently, the plastic
sachet of dangerous drugs obtained in the course of the arrest was also
admissible in evidence. More so considering that the defense did not present
any evidence to show that the law enforcers were impelled by any ill motive
to falsely implicate petitioner of illegal possession of dangerous drug.

13
Record, pp. 4-9.
14
Id. at 123.
15
Id. at 18.
16
lcl at 124-127.
17
Rollo, pp. 66-69

1
Decision 5 G.R. No. 201293

The Court of Appeals' Ruling

By Decision dated November 30, 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

It also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration through Resolution
dated February 29, 2012.

The Present Petition

Petitioner now implores the Court to exercise its discretionary appellate

jurisdiction to review and reverse the assailed dispositions of the Court of
Appeals.

He faults the Court of Appeals for first, admitting in evidence the

confiscated dangerous drug despite the fact that it was obtained incidental to
his invalid warrantless arrest and second, for disregarding the blatant breach
of the chain of custody rule.

In refutation, the OSG essentially reiterate its arguments before the

Court of Appeals.

Issues

1. Was petitioner's warrantless arrest valid?

2. Was the chain of custody rule duly complied with?

Ruling

On the first issue, we cannot sustain petitioner's challenge against his

warrantless arrest and the consequent seizure of the dangerous drug. A
warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and any objection thereto is
deemed waived when the person arrested submits to arraignment without
raising this objection through an appropriate motion to quash. 18

Here, petitioner voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court,

underwent arraignment and actively participated during the trial. Before
arraignment and even during the entire proceedings before, petitioner never
objected to the manner by which he got arrested. His belated objection for the
first time on appeal may no longer be entertained.

We now proceed to the second issue: was the chain of custody rule
complied with?

18
Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 710, 729 (2009).

I
Decision 6 ~ G.R. No. 201293

In drug related cases, the State bears the burden not only of proving the
elements of the offense but also the corpus delicti itself. 19 The dangerous drug
seized from the accused constitutes such corpus delicti. It is thus of utmost
imperative that the prosecution be able to establish that the identity and
integrity of the seized drug be duly preserved in order to support a verdict of
conviction. 20 Verily, not only should the prosecution prove the fact of
possession. It must also prove that the substance subject of illegal possession
is truly the substance offered in comi as corpus delicti with the same
unshakeable accuracy as that required to sustain a finding of guilt.

The Information here alleged that the offense was committed on

November 28, 2005. The governing law, therefore, is RA 9165, Section 21
( 1), viz:

(I) 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

Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165

complements the foregoing provision, viz:

(a) The apprehending officer/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 S\gn the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or
at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case
of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-
compliance with 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
of and custody over said items;
xxxx xxxx

19
People v. Bautista, 682 Phil. 487, 499-500(2012).
°Calahi v. People, G.R. No.
2
195043, November 20, 2017, citing People v. Casacop, 778 Phil. 369,376
(2016) and Zafra v. People, 686 Phil. I 095, 1105-1 I 06 (2012).

'
Decision 7 G.R. No. 201293

The chain of custody is the duly recorded authorized movements and

custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping and
their presentation in court for identification and destruction. This record of
movements and custody shall include the identity and signature of the person
who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when the
transfer of custody was made in the course of the item's safekeeping and use
in court as evidence, and its final disposition. 21

People v. Gayoso 22 enumerated the four links comprising the chain of

custody:

First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the dangerous drug

recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;

Seco~d, the turnover of the dangerous drug seized by the apprehending

officer to the investigating officer;

Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the dangerous drug

to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and

Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked dangerous drug

seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 23

We focus on the first, third and fourth links.

The first link refers to seizure and marking. "Marking" means the
apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer places his/her initials and signature
on the seized item. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial
link. It is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because
succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. 24
Marking though should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator
immediately upon confiscation to truly ensure that they are the same items
which enter the chain of custody. 25

Here, Barangay Tanod Bosque admitted he did not mark the dangerous
drug which he retrieved from the second floor of the Carbon Market, thus:

Q: Since you stated earlier that you were the one who picked up that
plastic pack containing white substance after it was flicked by that
person who was in possession of that plastic pack of white substance
from the scene up to the police station?
A: Me, ma' am.

21 People v. Diputado, G.R. No. 213922, July 5, 2017, 830 SCRA 172, 184 (2017).
22 G.R. No. 206590, March 27, 2017, 821 SCRA 516, 529 (2017).
23
24
25
People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. IO 17, I 030(2017).
People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 31 (2017).
People v. Ramirez and lachica, G.R. No. 225690, January 17, 2018, citing People v. Sanchez,
j
and 590 Phil. 214, 241 (2008).
Decision 8 G.R. No. 201293

Q: Upon arrival at the police station, Mr. Witness, what did you do
with the plastic pack which you have picked up from the ground?
A: I turned over the evidence to the Police Investigator at the Carbon
Police Station.

Q: After you turned over the item to the Investigator, do you know
what the Investigator did to the plastic pack of white substance?
A: A letter request was prepared.

Q: After that letter request was prepared, what happened?

A: The same, together with the evidence was brought to the PNP
Crime Laboratory at Gorordo Avenue. 26

XXX
Q: When you picked up the white substance, you did not do the
marking right there at the second floor of Unit 3 Carbon Market?
A: No, sir. 27

The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence

from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are
seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the ~nd of the criminal
proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of
evidence. 28

Here, the failure of Barangay Tanod Bosque to mark the dangerous

drug engendered serious doubts on whether the sachet of shabu which
petitioner allegedly flicked in the air and which Barangay Tanod Bosque
retrieved from the ground was indeed the very same item indicated in the
Chemistry Report.

In People v. Diputado, 29 the Court acquitted the accused when the

prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody because the
seized drug and buy bust money were not marked at the place where the
accused was arrested. The Court noted that from the time of seizure up until
the dangerous drug was brought to the office of the arresting officers,
alteration, substitution or contamination of the seized item could have
happened.

The first link also includes compliance with physical inventory and
photograph of the seized dangerous drug. This is done before the dangerous
drug is sent to the crime laboratory for testing.

Here, the testimonies of Barangay Tanods Bosque and Catalan did not
at all mention that the required inventory and photograph were complied with.
Also, the prosecution's offer of documentary evidence did not bear these twin
documents.

26
TSN, December 5, 2006, pp.11-12.
27
TSN, March 20, 2007, p. 13.
28
29
Supra note 21, pp. 184-185.
G.R. No. 2 I 3922, July 5, 2017, 830 SCRA 172, 188.
#
Decision 9 G.R. No. 201293

Hence, in the absence of competent proof that the required inventory

and photography were complied with, sans any justification therefor, the chain
of custody is considered to have been breached.

In People v. Alagarme30 and People v. Arposeple31 the Court ruled that

the failure of the arresting officers to prepare the required inventory and
photograph of the seized dangerous drug militated against the guilt of an
accused. For then the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus
delicti cannot be deemed to have been preserved.

In fine, the first link had been incipiently broken not once but thrice in
view of the omission to comply with first, the required marking, second, the
inventory and third, the photograph of the confiscated dangerous drug.

The third link refers to the transfer of the dangerous drug from the
investigating officer to the forensic chemist of the crime laboratory. Here,
Barangay Tanod Catalan testified that he was the one who brought the
dangerous drug to the crime laboratory after SPO 1 Abellana, the investigating
officer prepared the letter request for examination of the specimen. 32 SPO 1
Abellana, on the other hand, was not presented to testify how he handled the
dangerous drug from the time it was turned over to him by the arresting
officers up to the time he endorsed the same for chemical examination.

In People v. Carlit,3 3 the Court acquitted the accused when the

investigating officer who was in custody of the dangerous drug before the
same was sent to the crime laboratory for examination failed to testify on how
he handled the drug after it was placed in his custody until it was brought to
the forensic chemist. It was emphasized that "for during the interim time -
from when the specimen was placed under his custody until the time it was
~

brought to court - the threat of tampering, alteration, or substitution of

the corpus delicti still existed."

In sum, the third link here appears to have been as broken as the first
link.

Finally, the fourth link refers to the turnover and submission of the
dangerous drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 34 In drug related cases,
it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies as to details
pertinent to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for
examination i.e. when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what
identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen;
and the container it was in, as the case may be. Further, the forensic chemist
must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the

30
754 Phil. 449,457 (2015).
31
G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017.
32 Id.
33
G.R. No. 227309, August 16, 2017.
34
Supra note 23.
J
Decision 10 G.R. No. 201293

chemical composition of the subject specimen. 35

Here, forensic chemist P/Sr. Insp. Patriana did not testify on how he
supposedly received, handled, examined and preserved the integrity of the
dangerous drug from the time he received it until it left his custody. There was
no evidence either showing who tm11ed over the dangerous drug for the
purpose of presenting it to the court as evidence. 36

In People v. Dahil and Castro, 37 the Court acquitted the accused in

view of the absence of the testimony of the forensic chemist on how she
handled the dangerous drug submitted to her for laboratory examination, viz:

The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the
forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal
case. No testimonial or documentary evidence was given whatsoever as to
how the drugs were kept while in the custody of the forensic chemist until
it was transferred to the court. The forensic chemist should have personally
testified on the safekeeping of the drugs but the parties resorted to a general
stipulation of her testimony. Although several subpoena were sent to the
forensic chemist, only a brown envelope containing the seized drugs arrived
in court. Sadly, instead of focusing on the essential links in the chain of
custody, the prosecutor propounded questions concerning the location of the
misplaced marked money, which was not even indispensable in the criminal
case.

Hence, like the first and the third links, the final link in this case is
considered to have been breached.

Surely, the repeated lapses in the chain of custody rule here had cast
serious doubts on the identity and the integrity of the corpus delicti. The
metaphorical chain did not link at all, albeit it unjustly deprived petitioner of
his right to liberty.

In another vein, while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect

and unbroken, it is almost always impossible to obtain such perfect and
unbroken chain. 38 In this light, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
RA 9165 bears a saving clause allowing leniency whenever compelling
reasons exist that would otherwise warrant deviation from the established
protocol so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved. 39

Here, the arresting barangay tanods did not at all offer any explanation
which would have excused their failure to comply with the chain of custody
rule. They did not even acknowledge that they omitted the required marking,
inventory and photograph. In sum, the condition for the saving clause to

35
Board Regulation No. I, Series of 2002: Guide Iines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment.
36
Record, p. 50.
37
750 Phil. 212,237 (2015).
38
People v. Adrid, 705 Phil. 654,672 (2013).

1
39
See Section 21 (a), Article II ofthe IRR of RA 9165.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 201293

become operational was not fulfilled. For this reason, there is no occasion for
the proviso "as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved," to even come into play.

For perspective, in cases involving illegal possession of dangerous

drug, even for the most miniscule amount, imprisonment of at least twelve
years and one day awaits violators. It is thus of utmost importance that the
safeguards against abuses of power in the conduct of drug-related arrests be
strictly implemented. The purpose is to eradicate wrongful arrests and, worse,
conviction;. The pernicious practice of switching, planting or contamination
of the corpus delicti under the regime of RA 6425, otherwise known as the
"Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972," could again be resurrected if the lawful
requirements were otherwise lightly brushed aside. 40

Be that as it may, the presumption of regularity in the performance of

official duty arises only when the records do not indicate any irregularity or
flaw in the performance of official duty. Applied to dangerous drugs cases,
the prosecution cannot rely on the presumption when there is a clear showing
that the apprehending officers failed to comply mapy times over with the
requirements laid down in Section 21 of RA 6195 and its Implementing Rules
and Regulations. In any case, the presumption of regularity cannot be stronger
than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 41

Taken together, the lapses in the procedure laid out in Section 21 ofRA
9165 and the Implementing Rules and Regulations and the suspicious
handling of the seized drug here had impeached its integrity and evidentiary
value. As the dangerous drug presented before the court constitutes the corpus
delicti of the offense charged, it must be proven with moral certainty that it is
the same item seized from Largo during the roving patrol conducted by the
barangay tanods at the Carbon Public Market. Since the prosecution miserably
failed to discharge this burden, petitioner is entitled to a verdict of acquittal
on ground of reasonable doubt.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the Decision dated

November 30, 2010 in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 00940, REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.

Joel A. Largo is ACQUITTED of violation of Section 11, Article II of

Republic Act 9165. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

The Court DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections,

Muntinlupa City to cause the immediate release of Joel A. Largo from custody
unless he is being held for some other lawful cause, and to submit his report
on the action taken within five days from notice.
'1

40
People v. Luna, G.R. No. 219164, March 21, 2018.
41 Id.

I
 ..
Decision 12 G.R. No. 201293

SO ORDERED.

'U;AVIER
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

Qz:)~
ANTONIO T. CAR·
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

AAP.lwf
ESTELA Mf PjtRLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

Of{,~ E C. REYES, JR.

sociate Justice
Decision 13 G.R. No. 201293

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division

Senior Associate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the above
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.