THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 251894. March 2, 2022.]

JOHNNY PAGAL y LAVARIAS , petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

DECISION

LEONEN, J : p

This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assailing the

Decision 2 and Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
Regional Trial Court's Joint Decision 4 convicting Johnny Pagal y Lavarias
(Pagal) for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
In two separate Informations, Pagal was charged with violating
Sections 11 5 and 12 6 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. These Informations read:
Crim. Case No. L-11269
(For: Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165)
That sometime in the afternoon of October 17, 2016 in Basing,
Lingayen, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, who is without authority, did, then
and there, willfully and unlawfully have in his possession control and
custody 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.03 gram and 0.03 gram respectively
of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or Shabu, a dangerous drug
which were seized from his residence during a search and seizure
conducted by the authorities on the strength of a Search Warrant
issued by a competent Court against him for keeping dangerous
drugs and paraphernalia in his aforesaid residence without authority.
Contrary to Article [II], Section [11] of R.A. 9165, The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 7
Crim. Case No. L-11270
(For: Violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165)
That sometime in the afternoon of October 17, 2016 in Basing,
Lingayen, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, who is without authority, did, then
and there, willfully and unlawfully have in his possession, control and
custody one (1) open small transparent sachet containing Shabu
residue; improvised lamp; two (2) improvised scoopers; and two (2)
improvised tooters, which are paraphernalia fit for the introduction of
Shabu, a dangerous drug into the human body system which were
seized from his residence during a search and seizure undertaken by
the authorities on the strength of a Search Warrant issued by a
competent Court against him for keeping dangerous drugs and
paraphernalia in his aforesaid residence without authority. 8

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 Pagal pleaded not guilty to the crime during his arraignment. Trial on
the merits then ensued. 9
The prosecution presented three witnesses: (1) Police Officer 1
Emmanuel A. Saringan (PO1 Saringan); (2) Barangay Kagawad Manolo
Manuel (Kagawad Manuel); and (3) Police Chief Inspector Myrna Malojo
Todeño (Chief Inspector Todeño). 10
The prosecution alleged that on October 14, 2016, Executive Judge
Maria Laarni Parayno issued Search Warrant No. 33-2016-L. 11 At 4:00 a.m.
on October 17, 2016, the team implementing the search warrant conducted
a briefing at the Lingayen Police Station. 12 Chief Inspector Pagaduan was
the team leader, Police Officer 2 Eusebio G. Soriano, Jr. and PO1 Saringan
were assigned as searchers, Police Officer 3 Rodolfo Naungayan (PO3
Naungayan) as investigating officer, Police Officer 1 Jonalyn Rosario (PO1
Rosario) as photographer, and the rest were tasked to be perimeter security.
13

Later, at around 5:00 a.m., the team arrived at Pagal's house. 14 When
Chief Inspector Pagaduan announced their presence, Pagal came out of the
house. 15 PO3 Naungayan showed him the Search Warrant and explained its
contents to him. 16 Upon Kagawad Manuel's arrival, the search of the house
commenced. 17 In the living room, PO1 Saringan found atop the television a
Marlboro cigarette pack containing four small heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachets with white crystalline substances. 18 He also found an
improvised lamp, two lighters, a rectangular plastic box containing a small
open transparent plastic sachet with white crystalline residue, 15 aluminum
foil strips, two improvised scoops, and two improvised tooters on top of a
small table inside the room of Pagal's nephew. 19
As the search was ongoing, Police Officer 1 Oliver Sinaban contacted
Emil Toledo (Toledo) of Northwest Sun News and a representative from the
Department of Justice. Only Toledo arrived. 20
PO1 Saringan then marked the items seized in the presence of Pagal,
Kagawad Manuel, and Toledo. 21 The four plastic sachets were marked as
"JLP1" to "JLP4," while the drug paraphernalia seized were marked as "JLP5"
to "JLP27." 22 Still in the presence of the witnesses, PO1 Saringan proceeded
to conduct the inventory. Pagal was then brought to the police station. 23
PO1 Saringan later presented the seized items before the court that
issued the Search Warrant, before bringing them to the Pangasinan
Provincial Crime Laboratory Office in Lingayen for chemical analysis. 24 Upon
examination by Chief Inspector Todeño, 25 the specimens marked "JPL1" to
"JP4," as well as those found on the drug paraphernalia marked as "JLP5,"
"JLP24," and "JLP25," all tested positive for shabu. 26 She placed the items in
a brown envelope, signed the envelope, and turned it over to the evidence
custodian for safekeeping. 27
Pagal denied the charges against him. As the lone witness for the
defense, he denied owning the seized items. 28 He said that at around 5:00
a.m. on October 17, 2016, he was sleeping on the first floor of the house
when three police officers came knocking on the door of his nephew's room
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 on the second floor. At gunpoint, Pagal, along with his nephew and niece,
was ordered to go out of the house. Pagal was handcuffed and asked to sign
a paper. The police officers remained in the house until Kagawad Manuel
arrived, at which point they searched the house. In a cabinet in the living
room, PO1 Saringan and two other police officers found a Marlboro cigarette
case containing shabu, which Pagal denied was his. Though he admitted to
smoking, he said that he was using a different cigarette brand. 29
Pagal was made to sit in the living room while the search team went to
check the other rooms 30 and eventually discovered drug paraphernalia in
his nephew's room. The officers asked Pagal to go inside and witness the
taking of photographs of the seized items. 31 He was subsequently brought
and detained at the police station. 32
In a Joint Decision, 33 the Regional Trial Court convicted Pagal only of
illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, his guilt for violation of Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 having been established beyond reasonable
doubt, the accused is hereby sentenced, in Criminal Case No. L-
11269, to suffer pursuant to Section 11, paragraph 3 of said law, a
penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1)
day to seventeen (17) years and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
The accused is acquitted in Criminal Case No. L-11270.
The sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride and drug
paraphernalia presented as evidence in these cases are confiscated
in favor of the government for disposal in the manner set forth in the
law.
SO ORDERED. 34

The Regional Trial Court held that the prosecution established all the
elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 35 Since Pagal did not
deny ownership and dominion of the house where the illegal drugs were
found, the trial court applied the doctrine of constructive possession and
held that exclusive possession or control was not necessary. 36 It also did
not give credence to Pagal's unsubstantiated defense of denial, planting of
evidence, and frame-up, and instead lent greater weight to the prosecution's
evidence and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties. 37 It was also satisfied with the search team's substantial compliance
with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No.
9165, and held that the integrity of the confiscated illegal drugs was
preserved. 38
However, the Regional Trial Court invalidated the search of the
nephew's room and the seizure of the drug paraphernalia for the officers'
failure to comply with the two-witness requirement in executing a search
warrant under Rule 126, Section 8 of the Rules of Court. 39 Applying the
exclusionary rule, Pagal was acquitted of illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia. 40
Pagal appealed his conviction, but the Court of Appeals only affirmed
the Regional Trial Court's ruling. The dispositive portion of its August 19,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 2019 Decision 41 reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated
20 September 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69 of
Lingayen, Pangasinan convicting appellant for violation of Section 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. L-11269 is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 42

The Court of Appeals ruled that without contrary evidence, Pagal was
presumed to have knowledge and "full control and dominion over the seized
items retrieved from his house." 43 It also dismissed the defense of denial
and frame-up, there being no clear and convincing evidence to rebut the
presumption of regularity in the police officers' performance of duties. 44
The Court of Appeals disagreed with Pagal that his acquittal due to the
illegal search of his nephew's room tainted the search in the living room
where the illegal drugs were found, as Pagal himself was in the living room
when the police found the four sachets of shabu. 45 It also held that Pagal
waived his objections to the validity of the Search Warrant since he did not
question the same before the trial court. 46
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court's finding that there
was no significant break in the chain of custody. 47 It did not deem fatal the
marking of the seized drugs outside the house, together with the failure to
indicate the date, time, and place. It also dispensed with the testimony
showing the fourth link in the chain of custody, from the chemical analysis of
the drugs to their presentation in court. It found the Chain of Custody Form
sufficient since it recorded the movement of the drugs. 48 While the
inventory was inadmissible for being signed without Pagal's counsel, the
Court of Appeals said that this did not affect the integrity and identity of the
corpus delicti. 49
Pagal sought reconsideration, 50 but the Court of Appeals denied this in
a February 10, 2020 Resolution. 51 Hence, Pagal, who is out on bail, filed a
Petition for Review on Certiorari. 52
Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming
his conviction despite the prosecution's failure to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. 53 He alleges that the Search Warrant is invalid as it
lacked particularity of the area to be searched. 54 It stated "house located at
Barangay Basing Lingayen, Pangasinan" 55 — a place with an estimated
population of 2,770 as of 2015, says petitioner. He also claims that the
executive judge was not shown to have personally examined the applicant
or his witnesses. 56 Yet, he points out, the Court of Appeals simply dismissed
his allegations, ruling that he waived such defense in failing to assail the
validity of the Search Warrant before the trial court. 57
Petitioner adds that the prosecution failed to prove that he knew of the
dangerous drugs in his place where he exercises control and dominion. He
notes that the illegal drugs were found inside a pack of cigarettes that he
did not smoke, and that the pack was found in the common area to which
other people, including guests, had access. 58 He adds that the improper
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 search of his nephew's room negated the presumption of regularity as it
showed the police officers' blatant disregard of rules and his constitutional
rights. 59
Petitioner maintains that the chain of custody was broken. He says that
the first link is defective since the marking was done outside his house, and
the manner of marking was noncompliant with police protocol. 60 As to the
second and third links, he notes the lack of an investigating officer, as it was
PO1 Saringan, the seizing officer, who turned over the illegal drugs to the
crime laboratory. 61 There was also a significant unaccounted time between
the seizure at around 5:40 a.m. and the turnover to the laboratory at 1:25
p.m. 62 Moreover, the Custodial Receipt of Confiscated Items shows that the
executive judge turned over the items to PSI Franco T. Catalan. However, his
name does not appear in the Chain of Custody Form, nor was he presented
as a witness. 63 Finally, the fourth link was also not established, as it was not
shown how the evidence custodian preserved the integrity of the corpus
delicti before being presented in court. 64
In its Comment, 65 respondent People of the Philippines, through the
Office of the Solicitor General, asserts that the Court of Appeals correctly
convicted petitioner. Illegal drugs were found inside his residence, and he
allegedly did not refute ownership of the house searched. He also
categorically stated that his daughter and nephew did not own the cigarette
pack containing the illegal drugs. He also failed to present authority to
possess the same. Thus, says respondent, he is deemed to have
constructive possession of the illegal drugs. 66 It also contends that
petitioner waived his objections to the supposed illegality of the search and
seizure for failing to raise them before the trial court. 67
Moreover, respondent maintains that the deviations from Section 21's
requirements were not fatal, since the integrity and evidentiary value of the
corpus delicti had been preserved. 68 It claims that the Court of Appeals
correctly dismissed petitioner's defense and upheld the presumption of
regularity in the performance of the police officers' duty. 69
The main issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not petitioner
Johnny Pagal y Lavarias' guilt for illegal possession of dangerous drugs has
been established beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution failed to discharge this burden. Petitioner is acquitted:
I
We resolve first a preliminary issue raised in the Petition. Rule 126,
Section 4 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure prescribes the requirements to
issue a search warrant:
SECTION 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A
search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in
connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which
may be anywhere in the Philippines.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Petitioner assails the validity of Search Warrant No. 33-2016-L because
allegedly, there was no evidence that the executive judge who issued the
warrant examined the applicant. 70 We are not convinced. Petitioner raised
this for the first time before this Court, so he is deemed to have waived his
objection when he failed to raise it before the trial court. 71
Going into the substance of his contention, he assails the Search
Warrant due to the supposed lack of specific details on the particular area to
be searched. On this matter, Worldwide Web Corporation v. People 72 is
instructive:
Within the context of the above legal requirements for valid
search warrants, the Court has been mindful of the difficulty faced by
law enforcement officers in describing the items to be searched,
especially when these items are technical in nature, and when the
extent of the illegal operation is largely unknown to them. Vallejo v.
Court of Appeals ruled as follows:
The things to be seized must be described with
particularity. Technical precision of description is not
required. It is only necessary that there be reasonable
particularity and certainty as to the identity of the
property to be searched for and seized, so that the
warrant shall not be a mere roving commission. Indeed,
the law does not require that the things to be seized must
be described in precise and minute detail as to leave no
room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities. If
this were the rule, it would be virtually impossible for the
applicants to obtain a warrant as they would not know
exactly what kind of things to look for. Any description of
the place or thing to be searched that will enable the
officer making the search with reasonable certainty to
locate such place or thing is sufficient.
Furthermore, the Court also had occasion to rule that the
particularity of the description of the place to be searched and the
things to be seized is required "wherever and whenever it is feasible."
A search warrant need not describe the items to be seized in precise
and minute detail. 73 (Emphasis in the original)
Here, the Search Warrant specifically refers to petitioner, "Johnny Pagal
y Lavarias," as a resident of Barangay Basing, Lingayen, Pangasinan. 74 It
also qualifies his ownership of the house to be searched. 75 The language of
the Search Warrant points to petitioner's house in Barangay Basing,
Lingayen, Pangasinan, excluding all others. Petitioner did not deny that the
house searched by the authorities was his house. 76 He merely denied that
the confiscated drugs found inside his house was his. 77
The validity of the Search Warrant is, therefore, upheld.
II
Conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs requires that the
following be established: "(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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 consciously possessed the drug." 78 Possession contemplates actual and
constructive possession:
This crime is mala prohibita , and, as such, criminal intent is not an
essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the
accused had the intent to possess (animus possidendi) the drugs.
Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but
also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug
is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On
the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under
the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to
exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found.
Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot
avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the
place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.
Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive
possession, and a showing of non-exclusive possession would not
exonerate the accused. Such fact of possession may be proved by
direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn
therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused
had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place
under his control and dominion and the character of the drug. Since
knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of the
drugs in the place where he exercises dominion and control is an
internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the
dangerous drug is in the house or place over which the accused has
control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any
satisfactory explanation. 79 (Citations omitted)
The Court of Appeals correctly stated that all the elements are present.
80 The confiscated drugs were found inside petitioner's house, as specified in
the Search Warrant. Absent evidence to the contrary, mere finding of illicit
drugs in petitioner's house raises the presumption of constructive
possession. 81 Here, apart from alleging non-exclusive possession of the
house, Pagal merely denied having smoked Marlboro cigarettes. Pagal also
failed to present any authority to possess the illegal drugs confiscated from
his house. His only defenses were denial and frame-up. Without clear and
persuasive proof, these are inherently weak and deserve no credence. 82
Despite the presence of all the elements of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, we cannot sustain petitioner's conviction.
III
Aside from establishing the elements of illegal possession, the
prosecution must prove that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti
have been preserved and established beyond reasonable doubt. 83 The
existence of dangerous drugs as the corpus delicti of the crime is a condition
sine qua non for a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165. 84 This is because
illegal drugs are not readily identifiable and are easily open to tampering,
alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 85 Accordingly, it
must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the items offered in court are
the same items seized from the accused. 86
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 To do so, the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165
must be strictly complied with. 87 The law, as amended, provides the
procedure for the handling of the confiscation and disposition of the
confiscated items:
SECTION 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized
items and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the persons from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, with an elected public official and a representative
of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall
be required to sign 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, finally, 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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment,
the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic
Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination
results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory
examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of
the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not
allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a
partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally
issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs
still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 however, That a final certification shall be issued
immediately upon completion of the said examination and
certification[.] 88
Republic Act No. 10640 amended the witness requirement under
Section 21, which now only requires an elected public official and either a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or of the media. These
witnesses must be present not only during inventory, but more important,
during the seizure and confiscation of the illegal drugs:
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. And only if this is not practicable, the IRR allows that
the inventory and photographing could be done as soon as the buy-
bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team. By the same token, however, 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. Simply put, the buy-
bust team has enough time and opportunity to bring with them said
witnesses.
xxx xxx xxx
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. Mendoza , 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
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.
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 to 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 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." 89
(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
The prosecution argues that the police officers' noncompliance with the
requirements of Section 21 was not fatal since it was able to duly establish
the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized from
petitioner's residence. We disagree.
To invoke the saving clause under Section 21, the prosecution bears
the burden of explaining the deviations from the chain of custody
requirements. Not only must it acknowledge procedural lapses, but it must
also plead justifiable grounds for these lapses and specify the safety
measures undertaken in ensuring the integrity of the seized items.
Otherwise, the accused must be acquitted because such deviation
"constitutes a substantial gap in the chain of custody and raises doubts on
the integrity and evidentiary value of the items that were allegedly seized[.]"
90

In addition, the prosecution must establish every link in the chain of

custody:
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution
must account for each link in its chain of custody. People v. Gayoso
enumerates the links in the chain of custody that must be shown for
the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, i.e., first,
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover
of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of
the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug
seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 91 (Emphasis in the
original, citation omitted)
Here, the prosecution failed on both counts. Only a general
acknowledgement of noncompliance with Section 21 was made, without
identifying the specific measures undertaken to ensure the integrity and
evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. Worse, the prosecution attempted to
shift the burden to accused-appellant to allege or prove contamination of the
seized illegal drugs. 92 We cannot allow this.
To begin with, the significant lapses in the chain of custody create
reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the corpus delicti.
First, the two required witnesses were not present during the
confiscation of the illegal drugs, tainting both the seizure and marking of the
illegal drugs. The Search Warrant was implemented after the arrival of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Kagawad Manuel at around 5:40 a.m. 93 Media representative Toledo was
not present when the search began and arrived only "when the search was
about to finish[.]" 94 The Search Warrant was issued on October 14, 2016 95
but was implemented three days later. 96 Thus, the police officers had
sufficient time to ensure that both witnesses would be present during the
search. The prosecution did not attempt to explain why the search was
commenced without waiting for Toledo. It also appears that Toledo was only
contacted while the search was already ongoing. 97 This taints the credibility
of the corpus delicti at the time of seizure.
Second, the law and jurisprudence are clear that the marking,
inventory, and photographing of the seized drugs "shall be conducted at the
place where the search warrant is served." 98 The prosecution failed to
explain why the marking of seized items was done "outside the house[.]" 99
It is also unclear where exactly the seized drugs and paraphernalia were
marked and photographed.
The rule on immediate inventory and photographing of seized items
has only been excused when "the safety and security of the apprehending
officers and the witnesses required by law or of the items seized are
threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as retaliatory action of
those who have the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault." 100
Here, the marking and inventory were not done at the same place where the
Search Warrant was implemented — a clear deviation which the prosecution
did not acknowledge. There was no explanation as to the safeguards
undertaken to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs.
Thus, the first link in the chain of custody has already been tarnished.
Third, there is a glaring gap in the second and third links in the chain of
custody. It appears that the designated investigating officer was not involved
in the handling of the illegal drugs. To recall, PO3 Naungayan was assigned
as the investigator while PO1 Saringan was the seizing officer. 101 However,
records consistently state that it was PO1 Saringan who seized and marked
the illegal drugs, and delivered the same for laboratory examination. 102 PO3
Naungayan had no participation in the chain of custody despite being
designated as the investigating officer.
Finally, the fourth link in the chain of custody was also not established
beyond reasonable doubt. We agree with petitioner that there is no
testimony as to how the interim records custodian preserved the integrity of
the corpus delicti prior to its presentation in Court. 103 The Court of Appeals
erroneously relied on the Chain of Custody Form which supposedly duly
recorded the movement of the seized drugs. 104 Its reliance on the prima
facie rule on evidence on entries on official records is wrong. 105 In Mallillin
v. People , 106 this Court required the testimony regarding every link in the
chain of custody of dangerous drugs:
[T]he chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit
be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would
include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how
and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to
it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in
the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken
to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession
of the same.
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an
unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when
the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily
identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is
critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The
same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to
alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and
exchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to
fungibility, alteration or tampering — without regard to whether the
same is advertent or otherwise not — dictates the level of strictness
in the application of the chain of custody rule. 107 (Citations omitted)
The burden of establishing the unbroken chain of custody is with the
prosecution. This is a positive duty which the prosecution must discharge. In
People v. Sagana, 108 the prosecution's failure "to offer the testimonies of the
persons who had direct contact with the confiscated items without ample
explanation casts doubt on whether the allegedly seized shabu were the
very same ones presented in court." 109 Here, the testimony of Chief
Inspector Todeño was insufficient to establish the fourth link. There was no
testimony as to how the integrity and identity of the illegal drugs had been
preserved when they were turned over to PO3 Manuel, the officer for
safekeeping the evidence before being presented in court. 110 There was no
explanation why evidence custodian PO3 Manuel was not presented to
testify on these matters. Thus, the fourth link in the chain of custody was not
established.
There is no saving the prosecution's lapses in establishing all the links
in the chain of custody. Too many intervening events may have already
compromised the corpus delicti by the time the required witnesses arrived at
the scene. It also does not help the prosecution's case that the confiscated
items being dealt with here only amount to a meager 0.1 gram of shabu. 111
When only a minuscule amount of narcotics is involved, the requirements of
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 require a more exacting compliance. 112
The police officers' procedural lapses in handling the custody of the
seized drugs compromised the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti.
Ultimately, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
for which petitioner must be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The
August 19, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40744 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Johnny Pagal y Lavarias is
ACQUITTED. For their information, copies shall be furnished to the Police
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the seized sachets of
shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Lazaro-Javier, M.V. Lopez, J.Y. Lopez and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 12-37.

2. Id. at 39-60. The August 19, 2019 Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 40744 was penned
by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez and concurred in by Associate Justices
Maria Filomena D. Singh and Louis P. Acosta of the Fifteenth Division, Court
of Appeals, Manila.
3. Id. at 62-63. The February 10, 2020 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 40744 was
penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez and concurred in by Associate
Justices Maria Filomena D. Singh and Louis P. Acosta of the Former Fifteenth
Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4. Id. at 97-106. The September 20, 2017 Decision in Criminal Case Nos. L-11269
and L-11270 was penned by Presiding Judge Loreto S. Alog, Jr. of the Regional
Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69.

5. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 11 states in part:

Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon
any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug
in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxx xxx xxx

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the
penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity
of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but
less than fifty (50) grams;

(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment
and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs
are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine,
heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin
oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs
such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and
those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives,
without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but
less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years
and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to
Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous
drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or
cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil,
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such
as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those
similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without
having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of
marijuana.

6. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 12 states:

Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of imprisonment ranging
from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from
Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall
be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or
have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering,
injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body:
Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various professionals
who are required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the
necessary implementing guidelines thereof.
The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia fit or intended for any of the purposes enumerated in the
preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has
smoked, consumed, administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or
used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15 of
this Act.
7. Rollo , pp. 13-14.

8. Id. at 14.
9. Id.

10. Id.

11. Id.
12. Id. at 15.

13. Id. at 98.

14. Id. at 42.

15. Id. at 98.

16. Id. at 42.

17. Id. at 99.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 18. Id. at 42.

19. Id. at 99.

20. Id.
21. Id.

22. Id.
23. Id.

24. Id. at 100.

25. Id.
26. Id. at 43.

27. Id. at 100.

28. Id. at 43.

29. Id. at 43-44.

30. Id. at 44.

31. Id.

32. Id.
33. Id. at 97-106.

34. Id. at 106.

35. Id. at 101.

36. Id. at 102.

37. Id. at 103.

38. Id. at 104.

39. Id. at 105-106.

40. Id. at 106.

41. Id. at 33-60.

42. Id. at 59-60.

43. Id. at 50.

44. Id. at 51.

45. Id. at 52-53.

46. Id. at 53-54.

47. Id. at 54-58.

48. Id. at 55-57.

49. Id. at 58.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 50. Id. at 64-72.
51. Id. at 62-63.

52. Id. at 12-37.

53. Id. at 19.

54. Id. at 21.

55. Id. at 21.

56. Id.

57. Id.

58. Id. at 23.

59. Id. at 25.

60. Id. Petitioner cites the Revised Philippine National Police Manual on Anti-Illegal
Drugs Operations and Investigation (2014), sec. 2-6, par. (2.35).
61. Id. at 27.

62. Id. at 28.

63. Id. at 28.

64. Id. at 29.

65. Id. at 166-180.

66. Id. at 172-174.

67. Id. at 175.

68. Id. at 175-176.

69. Id. at 171.

70. Id. at 21.

71. Pastrano v. Court of Appeals, 346 Phil. 277, 287 (1997) [Per J. Mendoza, Second
Division] citing Demaisip v. Court of Appeals, 271 Phil. 392 (1991) [Per J.
Sarmiento, Second Division).

72. 724 Phil. 18 (2014) [Per Sereno, First Division].

73. Id. at 44-45 citing Vallejo v. Court of Appeals , 471 Phil. 670 (2004) [Per J.
Callejo, Sr., Second Division] citing People v. Veloso , 48 Phil. 169 (1925) [Per
J. Malcolm, En Banc].

74. Rollo , p. 129.

75. Id.

76. Id. at 43.

77. Id.

78. People v. Morales , 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Division].

79. People v. Tira , 474 Phil. 152, 173-174 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, En Banc].
80. Rollo , p. 50.

81. People v. Torres , 533 Phil. 227 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division] citing
People v. Tira , 474 Phil. 152 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, En Banc].
82. People v. Pangan , 840 Phil. 940, 958 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

83. Valencia v. People , 725 Phil. 268 (2014) [Per J. Reyes, First Division].

84. People v. Simbahon , 449 Phil. 74 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division]
citing People v. Mendiola, G.R. No. 110778, August 4, 1994 [Per J. Melo, Third
Division].

85. Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020,

<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66221> [Per J.
Gesmundo, Third Division] citing Valencia v. People , 725 Phil. 286 (2014) [Per
J. Reyes, First Division].
86. People v. Saunar , 816 Phil. 482, 491 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]
citing People v. Holgado , 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

87. People v. Manabat , G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019,

<https:/elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65603> [Per J.
Caguioa, Second Division].

88. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 21, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640
(2014).
89. People v. Tomawis , 830 Phil. 385, 405-409 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second
Division].

90. Tolentino v. People , G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020,

<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66108> [Per J.
A.B. Reyes, Jr., Second Division].
91. People v. Baltazar , G.R. No. 229037, July 29, 2019
<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65489> [Per J.
Lazaro-Javier, Second Division] citing People v. Gayoso , 808 Phil. 19, 31
(2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
92. Rollo , p. 173.

93. Id. at 126.

94. Id.
95. Id.

96. Rollo , p. 42.

97. Id. at 99.

98. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 21, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640
(2014). See also People v. Sebilleno, G.R. No. 221457, January 13, 2020,
<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66092> [Per J.
Leonen, Third Division] citing Lescano v. People , 778 Phil. 460 (2016) [Per J.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Leonen, Third Division].
99. Rollo , p. 54.

100. People v. Lim , G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018,

<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64400> [Per J.
Peralta, En Banc] citing People v. Mola , 830 Phil. 364 (2018) [Per J. Peralta,
Second Division].

101. Rollo , p. 125.

102. Id. at 43.

103. Id. at 29.

104. Id. at 55.

105. Id. at 57.

106. 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

107. Id. at 587-588.

108. 815 Phil. 356 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

109. Id. at 375.

110. Rollo , p. 55.

111. Id.

112. People v. Holgado , 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com