Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 184606
September 5, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CALEXTO DUQUE FUNDALES, JR., Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
1
On appeal is the April 18, 2008 Decision of the Cmn1 of Appeals (CA) in CA-C.R. CR-H.C. No. 02274, which affirmed the
2
March 18, 2006 Decision or the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paraaque City, Branch 259, in Criminal Case No. 031425. Said RTC Decision declared appellant Calexto Duque Fundales, Jr. (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00
Factual Antecedents
On Decen1ber 8, 2003, appellant was charged with violations of Section 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs), Section 11
(illegal possession of dangerous drugs), and Section 12 in relation to Section 14 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia)
of Article II, RA No. 9165. The Informations read as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 03-1425
(For violation of Section 5, Article II, RA No. 9165)
That on or about the 2nd day of December 2003, in the City of Paraaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) in the total weight 0.10 gram, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited
law.
3
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 03-1426
(For violation of Section 11, Article II, RA No. 9165)
That on or about the 2nd day of Dec. 2003, in the City of Paraaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession and under his control and custody Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride
(shabu) weighing 0.02 gram, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
4
CONTRARY TO LAW.
In the charge for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, appellant was charged together with Ricardo Duque Fundales
(Ricardo), Chulo Duque Fundales (Chulo), Jerico Cabangon Hugo (Jerico), and Joel Manuel Gomez (Joel). The
Information reads:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 03-1427
(For violation of Section 12 in relation to Section 14, Article II, RA No. 9165)
That on or about the 2nd day of Dec. 2003, in the City of Paraaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and
aiding one another, being in the proximate company of five (5) persons and having gathered together, not being lawfully
authorized to possess and/or use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously possess
and have under their control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting or introducing any dangerous drug into the body, in violation of the above-cited law.
5
CONTRARY TO LAW.
6
During arraignment, the appellant and his co-accused pleaded not guilty.
7
Thereafter, the parties agreed to terminate the pre-trial and set the case for trial on the merits.
Version of the Prosecution
On the evening of December 2, 2003, the Chief of the Intelligence Unit of the Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special Task Force
of Paraaque City Police, Police Superintendent Alfredo Valdez (P/Supt. Valdez), received an information from a
confidential informant about the illegal drug trade operations conducted by the Fundales brothers. P/Supt. Valdez thus
formed a buy-bust team composed of PO1 Ariel Ilagan, PO1 Cesarie Soquia (PO1 Soquia), PO1 Emmanuel Salvaloza,
PO3 Regalado Adriatico and CE Ronald Tangcoy. The group then proceeded to 008 Jordan Street, Sitio Nazareth,
Barangay San Isidro, Paraaque City for the buy-bust operation.
8
The group arrived in the vicinity of the target area at around 9:00 p.m. PO1 Soquia, who was designated as the poseur9
buyer, and the informant proceeded to the house of the appellant. The team remained inside their vehicles about 20
meters away from the target area. The informant then introduced PO1 Soquia to the appellant as the person interested
10
in buying shabu worth P 500.00.
11
After PO1 Soquia handed the P 500.00 marked money to the appellant, the latter then went inside his house and when
12
he reappeared, he handed to PO1 Soquia five plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO1 Soquia

then lit a cigarette which was the pre-arranged signal to inform the rest of the team that the buy-bust operation had been
13
14
consummated. Hence, the team of back-up police officers proceeded to appellant's house to apprehend him. Inside
the house, the police officers saw Jerico, Ricardo, Chulo, and Joel who appeared to be engaged in a pot session hence
15
they were also arrested along with the appellant.
The five sachets of white crystalline substance sold by appellant, together with one sachet obtained from the group and
the drug paraphernalia, were immediately marked and inventoried. The same were then submitted to the crime laboratory
16
of the Philippine National Police (PNP) for examination. After conducting a forensic examination, P/Insp. Richard Allan
B. Mangalip (Mangalip), Chief of the Physical Science Section and Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime
17
Laboratory, issued Physical Science Report No. D-1402-03S confirming that the specimen submitted yielded positive for
the presence of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.
Version of the Defense
18
On December 2, 2003, appellant was at home with Ricardo, Chulo, Joel, and Jerico repairing a washing machine. At
19
around 4:30 p.m., eight persons suddenly entered his house without warning and permission. Aside from their weapons
20
and handcuffs, there was no indication that the men were police officers since they were all in civilian clothing. Once
21
inside, the men shouted, "Walang gagalaw, sumama kayo sa amin". They were then brought to the Coastal Police
22
Station and detained there for two days.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On March 18, 2006, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting appellant in Criminal Case No. 03-1425 for illegal sale of
shabu and dismissing Criminal Case No. 03-1426 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and Criminal Case No. 031427 for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, for insufficiency of evidence. The dispositive portion of the Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, finding Calexto Duque Fundales, Jr. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for
Violation of Section 5 Article II RA 9165 he is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P 500,000.00.
The case against him under Crim. Case No. 03-1426 for alleged [violation] of Section 11 Art. II RA 9165 is
ordered DISMISSED being considered absorbed in the commission of Violation of Section 5 under Crim. Case No. 031425. The case for alleged Violation of Section 12 in relation to Section 14 Art. II RA 9165 against accused Calexto
Duque Fundales, Jr., Ricardo Duque Fundales, Chulo Duque Fundales, Jerico Cabangon Hugo and Joel Manuel Gomez
is also ordered DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.
The Clerk of Court is directed to prepare the Mittimus for the immediate transfer of accused Calexto Duque Fundales, Jr.
to the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City and to forward the specimen subject of this case to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.
The Jail Warden of this jurisdiction is hereby ordered to immediately release JERICO CABANGON HUGO from custody
unless there be some other legal reason to warrant his further detention.
23
SO ORDERED.
In finding appellant guilty of illegal sale of shabu, the RTC gave due consideration to the testimonies of the law
24
enforcement officers. It held that "no ill-motive or wrongdoing could be ascribed to the herein police officers with respect
25
to the buy-bust operation x x x." It gave full credit and weight to the testimony of PO1 Soquia who positively identified
the appellant as the person from whom he bought five plastic sachets of shabu during the buy-bust operation.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court's Decision disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated 18 March 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City, Branch 259, in
Criminal Case No. 03-1425 finding appellant Calexto Fundales, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED.
26
SO ORDERED.
Not satisfied with the Decision of the CA, the appellant is now before this Court adopting the same issues he raised in the
appellate court, viz:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE OF THE
PROSECUTION AND DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF THE BUY-BUST OPERATION.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE
27
PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY IN FAVOR OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS.
Issue
The main issue for resolution is whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II
of RA No. 9165.
Our Ruling

The appeal lacks merit.

"Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs if the following elements are present: (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
28
payment thereto."
This Court is convinced that the prosecution sufficiently discharged the burden of establishing the elements of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs and in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
The identity of the buyer and the seller were both established by the prosecution, appellant being the seller and PO1
Soquia as the poseur-buyer. The object of the transaction was the five sachets of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or
shabu and the consideration was the P 500.00 marked money. Both such object and consideration have also been
sufficiently established by testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution. As to the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor, PO1 Soquia caught appellant in flagrante delicto selling and delivering the
prohibited substance during a buy-bust operation. He also personally handed to appellant the marked money as payment
for the same. Clearly, the above-mentioned elements are present in this case.
Appellant insists that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He argues that the
prosecution's failure to present the forensic chemist during trial was fatal to its cause. According to the appellant, the
29
laboratory report has no probative value since the forensic chemist did not attest to the report's authenticity. In view of
this, he points out that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti.
This Court is not persuaded. We have already ruled in a number of cases that non-presentation of the forensic chemist in
30
illegal drugs cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal.
31
In People v. Quebral, we held thus:
The accused-appellants also point out that, since the chemist who examined the seized substance did not testify in court,
the prosecution was unable to establish the indispensable element of corpus delicti. But this claim is unmeritorious. This
Court has held that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal.
The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. This means that proof beyond doubt of
the identity of the prohibited drug is essential.
Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory analyst. In fact, this Court has ruled that the
report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its
preparation. Corollarily, under Section 44 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the
performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts they state. Therefore, the report of Forensic Chemical
Officer Sta. Maria that the five plastic sachets PO3 Galvez gave to her for examination contained shabu is conclusive in
the absence of evidence proving the contrary. x x x (Citations omitted.)
Thus, it is of no moment that Forensic Chemical Officer Mangalip was not presented as witness. The non-presentation as
32
witnesses of other persons who had custody of the illegal drugs is not a crucial point against the prosecution. "It is the
prosecution which has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present
33
as witnesses." What is important is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are properly preserved as
it had been so in this case.
Besides, it has not escaped our attention that during the proceedings before the trial court, both the prosecution and the
defense agreed to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist. During the trial held on August 19, 2004, the
parties stipulated as regards the probative value of the documents and physical evidence marked as Exhibits "A" to
34
"C." Exhibit "A" pertained to the letter request for laboratory examination of the specimens. Exhibit "B" was the specimen
subject to laboratory examination; while Exhibit "C" was the Physical Science Report No. D-1402-03S submitted by the
forensic chemist. The parties likewise stipulated that it was Forensic Chemical Officer Mangalip who conducted a
qualitative examination on the specimens.
Appellant next claims that the pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution were obtained in violation of Sections 21
and 86(a) of RA No. 9165 regarding the proper custody and disposition of seized narcotic substances and dangerous
drugs. He also avers that the prosecution failed to prove that the police officers coordinated and reported the buy-bust
operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
The provisions of RA No. 9165 cited by the appellant are meant to safeguard the accused in drugs cases against abuses
of law enforcement officers. They provide for the proper handling of confiscated dangerous drugs in order to prevent
malicious imputations of guilt upon an unsuspecting accused.
35
However, as correctly ruled by the CA, this Court has already held in People v. Sta. Maria that:
The failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with Section 21 was not fatal. It did not render the appellant's arrest
illegal nor the evidence adduced against him inadmissible.
The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police
officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because
appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged
violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for
the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the
safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of
objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.

As in the above-quoted case, the appellant here did not question during trial the alleged improper handling of the items
seized from him, it being the proper time for him to raise such objections. We cannot thus accept such belated argument
of the appellant especially so when the integrity of the items seized from him was shown to have been preserved.
Evidence on record shows that the seized drugs were inventoried. "Slight infractions or nominal deviations by the police
36
from the prescribed method of handling the corpus delicti should not exculpate an otherwise guilty defendant."
Appellant further claims that the police officers failed to coordinate and report the buy-bust operation with the PDEA. To
appellant, this tainted the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty of the police officers. He likewise posits that
the arresting officers had insufficient authority to conduct the said operation.
37
Section 86 of RA No. 9165 deals with inter-agency relations of the PNP and other law enforcement agencies with the
PDEA. It is an administrative provision designating the PDEA as the lead agency in dangerous drugs cases. We have
already ruled that nothing in RA No. 9165 suggests that it is the intention of the legislature to make an arrest in drugs
38
cases illegal if made without the participation of the PDEA. In the implementing rules and regulations of RA No. 9165,
Section 86(a) clearly states:
(a) Relationship/Coordination between the PDEA and Other Agencies. - The PDEA shall be the lead agency in the
enforcement of the Act, while the PNP, the NBI and other law enforcement agencies shall continue to conduct anti-drug
operations in support of the PDEA xxx Provided, finally, that nothing in this IRR shall deprive the PNP, the NBI, other law
enforcement personnel and the personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from effecting lawful arrests and
seizures in consonance with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied)
Suffice it to state that in this case, the danger of abuse that the provision seeks to prevent is not present. We therefore
see no reason why the non-participation of the PDEA would render the arrest illegal and the evidence obtained therein
inadmissible considering that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized prohibited substances and dangerous drugs
have been properly preserved.
Appellant further asserts that no buy-bust operation took place contrary to the testimony of the arresting
officers.1wphi1He claims that on the day of the alleged buy-bust operation, he was at home repairing a washing
machine.
Appellant's contention does not deserve serious consideration. It is well-settled that the testimonies of the police officers in
dangerous drugs cases carry with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. "Law enforcers
39
are presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary." In this case, PO1
Soquia narrated in a straightforward manner the circumstances leading to the sale of shabu. He positively and
categorically identified appellant as the seller of the drugs. Absent any clear showing that the arresting officers had ill
motive to falsely testify against the appellant, their testimonies must be respected and the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their duties must be upheld. Appellant himself testified that he never had any personal encounter with the
40
police prior to his arrest, thus negating any ill-motive on the part of the police officers.
The appellant, on the other hand, offers mere denial as his defense. He claims that he was merely fixing a washing
machine at the time of the arrest and that the alleged buy-bust operation was fictitious. However, other than his own selfserving testimony, appellant has not offered any evidence to support this claim. We have held that "a bare denial is an
41
inherently weak defense x x x." Appellant's denial is unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence. Between
the positive and categorical testimonies of the arresting officers on one hand, and the unsubstantiated denial of the
appellant on the other, we are inclined to uphold the former.
All told, this Court thus sustains the RTC's conviction of the appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165,
as affirmed by the CA.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The April 18, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
02274 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION

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.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1
CA rollo, pp. 99-107; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred in by Associate Justices
Mario L. Guaria III and Romeo F. Barza.
2
Records, pp. 286-291; penned by Judge Zosimo V. Escano.
3
Id. at 1.
4
Id. at 9.
5
Id. at 10.
6
Id. at 13.
7
Id. at 30.
8
TSN, May 23, 2005, p. 15.
9
Id. at 17.
10
Id. at 19.
11
Id. at 20.
12
Id. at 21-22.
13
Id. at 22.
14
Id. at 23.
15
Id. at 24.
16
Records, p. 6.
17
Id.
18
Id. at 214; TSN, June 21, 2005, p. 5.
19
Id. at 216-217; id. at 7-8.
20
Id. at 216; id. at 7.
21
Id. at 218; id at 9.
22
Id. at 219-222; id. at 10-11.
23
Records, pp. 290-291. Emphases in the original.
24
Id. at 290.
25
Id.
26
CA rollo, p. 107.
27
Id. at 30.
28
People v. Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, August 16, 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 339.
29
CA rollo, pp. 36-37.
30
People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 187737, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 542, 556.
31
G.R. No. 185379, November 27, 2009, 606 SCRA 247, 255.
32
People v. Padua, G.R. No. 174097, July 21, 2010, 625 SCRA 220, 235.
33
People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182347, October, 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 879, 893.
34
Records, p. 85.
35
G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621, 633-634.
36
People v. Sultan, supra note 30 at 552.
37
Section 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and
Transitory Provisions. - The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs
Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby abolished; however they shall continue with the performance of their task as
detail service with the PDEA, subject to screening, until such time that the organizational structure of the Agency
is fully operational and the number of graduates of the PDEA Academy is sufficient to do the task themselves:
Provided, That such personnel who are affected shall have the option of either being integrated into the PDEA or
remain with their original mother agencies and shall, thereafter, be immediately reassigned to other units therein
by the head of such agencies. Such personnel who are transferred, absorbed and integrated in the PDEA shall be
extended appointments to positions similar in rank, salary, and other emoluments and privileges granted to their
respective positions in their original mother agencies.
The transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices and units provided for in this Section shall
take effect within eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That personnel absorbed
and on detail service shall be given until five (5) years to finally decide to join the PDEA.
Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all
other crimes as provided for in their respective organic laws: Provided, however, That when the
investigation being conducted by the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a

violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or any of
the task force shall immediately transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI, PNP and
the Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters.
38
People v. Sta. Maria, supra note 35 at 634.
39
People v. Padua, supra note 32 at 238.
40
Records, p. 226; TSN, June 21, 2005, p. 17.
41
People v. Quigod, G.R. No. 186419, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 407, 424.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 190342
March 21, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CIPRIANO CARDENAS y GOFRERICA, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
SERENO, J.:
1
This is an appeal from the Decision dated 19 February 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) Second Division in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 02634, which affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Appellant was convicted by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 103 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-114312 for selling the prohibited drug
2
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The Facts
On 07 January 2003, an Information was filed against accused Cipriano Cardena y Gofrerica, alias "Ope," for violation of
Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 6th day of January, 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law
to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully, and unlawfully sell,
dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, zero point zero five (0.05) gram of white
crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "SHABU" a dangerous drug.
3
CONTRARY TO LAW.
4
Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded "Not guilty" to the crime charged.
Prosecutions Version of the Facts
The evidence for the prosecution shows that around 12 p.m. of 06 January 2003, the Detection and Special Operations
Division of the Criminal Investigation Division Group (DSOD-CIDG) in Camp Crame received a report from its confidential
informant regarding the rampant selling of shabu by a certain Cipriano Cardenas (a.k.a. "Ope") at the Payatas Area in
Quezon City. Acting on the information, a team was organized to conduct a buy-bust operation. Police Officer (PO) 3
5
Edgardo Palacio was head of the team and PO3 Rene Enteria was designated to act as the poseur-buyer. They marked
a P 100 bill with the initials "ERP" on the lower right portion of its dorsal side and used the money in the buy-bust
6
operation. The team agreed that upon the consummation of the sale, PO3 Enteria would throw away his cigarette to
7
signal the moment at which the drug pusher would be arrested.
The team proceeded to Lupang Pangako, Barangay Payatas, Quezon City to conduct the buy-bust operation. At the site,
PO3 Enteria was guided by the confidential informant and closely followed by PO3 Palacio and two other team members.
They chanced upon the accused wearing camouflage pants and standing near a small house located on a
8
pathway. Approaching the accused, the informant introduced the police officer as the person interested to buy shabu.
PO3 Enteria was asked how much he wanted to buy, and he answered "P 100." The accused then took out a clear plastic
sachet containing a white crystalline substance from his pocket and handed it to PO3 Enteria. After handing the
marked P 100 bill to the accused, the police officer threw away his cigarette as a signal of the consummation of the buy9
bust operation.
PO3 Palacio and the rest of the team, who were just 15 meters away from the scene, immediately approached, arrested
the accused, and frisked the latter. PO3 Palacio recovered two (2) other clear plastic sachets from the accuseds right
pocket. The three sachets were marked "CC-1," "CC-2" and "CC-3" "CC" representing the initials of the accused,
10
Cipriano Cardenas. He was then brought to Camp Crame, where he was booked and investigated. The plastic sachets
recovered from him were transmitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for analysis upon the request of Police Chief Inspector
11
Ricardo N. Sto. Domingo, Jr. of the DSODCIDG. The results of the Initial Laboratory Report dated 07 January
12
2003 showed that the white crystalline substance contained in the three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets tested positive
13
for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, with a total weight of 0.05 gram.
14
On 07 January 2003, an Information for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, was filed against the accused. The
case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Judicial Capital Region of Quezon City, Branch 103 and
docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-03-114312.
The Accuseds Version of the Facts

The accused had a different version of the facts surrounding his arrest. He claimed that around 3:00 p.m. of 06 January
15
2003, while he was walking home, four persons handcuffed him and forced him to board a vehicle. He was taken to the
CIDG office at Camp Crame, where he was informed that he was being arrested for selling shabu. While inside the
investigation room, one of the men who arrested him gave the investigator a P 100 bill. He claimed to have not seen the
alleged shabu at the time of his arrest or even during the CIDG investigation or during the inquest at the public
16
prosecutors office.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
A full-blown trial was held by the RTC, before which were presented PO3 Palacio and PO3 Enteria as witnesses for the
prosecution. For the defense, only the accused testified in his defense. On 03 January 2007, the RTC promulgated a
17
Decision convicting him of the crime charged. The trial court gave credence to the testimonies and pieces of evidence
presented by the prosecution. It ruled that the police operation had followed the normal course of a drug entrapment
operation, and that the arresting officers presented as prosecution witnesses were credible based on their candid and
honest demeanor. The RTC considered as absurd the allegation of the accused that he had been whimsically arrested by
the police officers during the operation. It found as weak and inconceivable his uncorroborated denial of the charge.
The dispostive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, judgement is hereby rendered finding the accused CIRPIANO CARDENAS y GOFRERICA GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (drug pushing) as charged and he is hereby
sentenced to a jail term of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P 500,000.00.
The 3 sachets of shabu involved in this case are ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru the DDB for proper care and
disposition as required by R.A. 9165.
SO ORDERED.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The accused appealed his conviction to the CA, which docketed the case as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 2634. On 19 February
18
2009, the appellate court, through its Second Division, promulgated a Decision affirming the trial courts conviction of the
accused. It ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the necessary elements to prove the illegal sale of drugs
under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. It also found that the prosecution witnesses were credible when they testified on
the custody and identity of the drugs confiscated from the accused. Thus, it affirmed in toto the RTCs Decision, which it
found to be supported by the facts and law. The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the
appellate court for lack of merit.
The Issues
The accused elevated his appeal to this Court raising this lone issue:
The honorable court of appeals committed a reversible error in convicting the accused-appellant despite non-compliance
19
with the requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165.
The defense alleges that the arresting officers did not follow the required procedure for the handling of seized drugs in a
20
buy-bust operation as stated in Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165. It points out
that there is a dearth of evidence to prove that the plastic sachets recovered from the accused were marked at the crime
21
scene in his presence immediately upon confiscation thereof. Thus, the defense argues that due to the arresting officers
22
noncompliance with the correct procedure, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.
The Ruling of the Court
We DENY the appeal of the accused for lack of merit and accordingly affirm the assailed Decision of the CA.
Under Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the elements that must be proven for the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu
are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery
23
of the thing sold and its payment. The State has the burden of proving these elements and is obliged to present the
24
corpus delicti in court to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In the instant case, the defense does not raise any issue with regard the sale and delivery of the illegal drugs for which the
accused was arrested. The point of contention pertains to the noncompliance by the arresting officers with Section 21,
Article II of the IRR implementing R.A. 9165 regarding the chain of custody of seized drugs. This is an important matter
because, if proven, substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs would cast serious doubts on the
authenticity of the evidence presented in court and entitle the accused to an acquittal.
25
In People v. Salonga, we held that it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or
recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with
unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt. Thus, drug enforcement agents and police officers involved in a
buy-bust operation are required by R.A. 9165 and its implementing rules to mark all seized evidence at the buy-bust
scene. Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR, states:
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.
(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 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, 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;
The defense wants to impress upon this Court that the arresting officers did not conduct a physical inventory of the items
seized and failed to photograph them in the presence of the accused and of other personalities specified by Section 21
26
(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. 9165. It argues that this lapse on the part of the police officers involved in the buy-bust
operation raise uncertainty and doubts as to the identity and integrity of the articles seized from the accused whether
they were the same items presented at the trial court that convicted him. Based on this noncompliance by the arresting
officers, the defense prays for the acquittal of the accused.
We are not persuaded by these arguments.
The chain of custody is defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which
implements R.A. No. 9165:
b. "Chain of Custody" means 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 to presentation in court for destruction. Such
record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary
custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and
used in court as evidence, and the final disposition .
To protect the civil liberties of the innocent, the rule ensures that the prosecutions evidence meets the stringent standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt. We have held, however that substantial compliance with the procedural aspect of the
27
chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible. In People v. Ara, we ruled that
R.A. 9165 and its IRR do not require strict compliance with the chain of custody rule:
As recently highlighted in People v. Cortez and People v. Lazaro, Jr., RA 9165 and its subsequent Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR) do not require strict compliance as to the chain of custody rule. The arrest of an accused will not be
invalidated and the items seized from him rendered inadmissible on the sole ground of non-compliance with Sec. 21,
Article II of RA 9165. We have emphasized that what is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."
Briefly stated, non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody,
photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons, is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and
custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation. (Emphasis supplied.)
In the instant case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs was not broken. The testimony of PO3
Palacio shows that he was the one who recovered from the accused the three plastic sachets of shabu, together with the
marked money. He also testified that he was the one who personally brought the request for examination to the PNP
Crime Laboratory and had the plastic sachets examined there. During the trial of the case, he positively identified the
plastic sachets that he had recovered from the accused and had marked "CC-1, "CC-2" and "CC-3." The pertinent
portions of the testimony of PO3 Palacio are as follows:
FIS. JURADO:
Q. And after you recovered the buy-bust money and these three plastic sachets of shabu, what did you do with the
accused?
WITNESS:
A. We brought them to the office.
FIS. JURADO:
Q. What happened to (sic) the office?
WITNESS:
A. He was investigated.
FIS. JURADO:
Q. How about the three plastic sachets, what did you do with these three plastic sachets.
WITNESS:
A. We have examined it at the Crime Laboratory.
FIS. JURADO:
Q. How does (sic) it brought to the Crime Laboratory?
WITNESS:
A. We asked a request from our investigator.
FIS. JURADO:
Q. Is this the same request for laboratory examination that you are referring to?
WITNESS:
A. Yes sir.
FIS. JURADO:
Q. Who brought this request to the Crime Laboratory for examination?

WITNESS:
A. I sir.
FIS. JURADO:
Q. Where does it show the delivery?
WITNESS:
A. Here your honor.
(Witness pointing in open court to the document the request for laboratory examination the date when it was delivered.)
xxx
xxx
xxx
FIS. JURADO:
Q. x x x
xxx
xxx
May we request that the said documents be marked as Exhibit F and if the said plastic sachet would be shown to you,
how will you be able to identify the same?
WITNESS:
A. I can identify it because it has a marking sir CC-1, CC-2, and CC-3 your Honor.
FIS. JURADO:
Q. You mean to say to this Honorable Court that the three plastic sachets has (sic) a marking CC-1, CC-2, and CC-3?
WITNESS:
A. Yes your Honor.
FIS. JURADO:
Q. What was (sic) CC stands for?
WITNESS:
28
A. The name of our suspect Cipriano Cardenas your Honor.
PO3 Rene Enteria, who had acted as the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, corroborated the testimony of PO3
Palacio and indicated that the latter was in custody of the seized drugs from the time the accused was arrested until these
were sent to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis. We quote the relevant portions of PO3 Enterias testimony from
the records:
FIS. ARAULA:
After you said a while ago that you made a pre-arranged signal, what happened then after that?
WITNESS:
PO3 Palacio approached us and arrested the subject sir.
FIS. ARAULA:
When PO3 Palacio arrested the accused, where was (sic) you?
WITNESS:
I was behind them sir.
FIS. ARAULA:
Where is the buy bust money when Palacio arrested the accused?
WITNESS:
It was recovered to (sic) Ope sir.
FIS. ARAULA:
After arresting the accused, what happened then?
WITNESS:
We returned to the police station sir.
FIS. ARAULA:
What happened to the police station?
WITNESS:
The suspect was investigated sir.
FIS. ARAULA:
Who was in possession of that transparent plastic sachet when you were going to the police station?
WITNESS:
I was the one sir.
xxx
xxx
xxx
FIS. ARAULA:
If that transparent plastic sachet be shown to you, can you identify that?
WITNESS:
Yes sir.
FIS ARAULA:
Showing to you this transparent plastic sachet, what can you say about this?
WITNESS:
This is the one that I purchased sir.
FIS. ARAULA:

It appears that there are three (3) transparent plastic sachets in this case, in fact this is the one that you purchased, how
about these two (2) other transparent plastic sachets, where did it came (sic) from?
WITNESS:
It was recovered by Palacio after the arrest of the suspect sir.
FIS. ARAULA:
Why did you say that this is the transparent plastic sachet containing shabu that you purchased?
WITNESS:
Because I remember the size sir.
FIS. ARAULA:
That is the only reason, due to the size of the transparent plastic sachet?
WITNESS:
I also has (sic) initial in the plastic sir.
FIS. ARAULA:
What is the initial?
WITNESS:
Palacio was the one who made the marking sir.
xxx
xxx
xxx
FIS. ARAULA:
How about the evidence that you confiscated in relation to this Section 5, R.A. 9165 against the accused, where was that
when there was an investigation?
WITNESS:
29
It was brought to the Crime Laboratory for examination sir.
CROSS EXAMINATION:
ATTY. CABAROS:
Who actually recovered the shabu from the accused?
WITNESS:
Palacio sir.
xxx
xxx
xxx
COURT:
Why is it that it could (sic) seem that Palacio was the one who marked the money and he marked also all the three (3)
plastic sachets? You never mark with your initial the buy bust money and you never mark with your initial that particular
plastic sachet you said that was given to you by the accused, how come that it was always Palacio (who) made the
marking and you as poseur buyer did not mark the items?
WITNESS:
30
Because when we made (the) marking, we make only one marking, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION:
FIS. ARAULA:
When this Palacio placed this mark, all the evidences that was confiscated from the accused, where were you?
WITNESS:
I was near Palacio sir.
FIS. ARAULA:
So you noticed that Palacio placed his markings to the evidences?
WITNESS:
31
Yes sir. (Emphasis supplied.)
From these testimonies of the police officers, the prosecution established that they had custody of the drugs seized from
the accused from the moment he was arrested, during the time he was transported to the CIDG office in Camp Crame,
and up to the time the drugs were submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. The said police officers also
identified the seized drugs with certainty when these were presented in court. With regard to the handling of the seized
drugs, there are no conflicting testimonies or glaring inconsistencies that would cast doubt on the integrity thereof as
evidence presented and scrutinized in court. To the unprejudiced mind, the testimonies show without a doubt that the
evidence seized from the accused at the time of the buy-bust operation was the same one tested, introduced, and testified
to in court. In short, there is no question as to the integrity of the evidence.
Although we find that the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of the IRR
implementing R.A. 9165, the noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from the accused,
because the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case. We held
32
thus in Zalameda v. People of the Philippines :
Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165
does not necessarily render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is
of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the present case, we see substantial compliance

by the police with the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items, thus showing that the
integrity of the seized evidence was not compromised. We refer particularly to the succession of events established by
evidence, to the overall handling of the seized items by specified individuals, to the test results obtained, under a situation
where no objection to admissibility was ever raised by the defense. All these, to the unprejudiced mind, show that the
evidence seized were the same evidence tested and subsequently identified and testified to in court. In People v. Del
Monte, we explained:
We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the
photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3
of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or
these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such
law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will accorded it by the courts. x x x
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the
confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if
there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight evidentiary merit or probative value to
be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in
each case. (Emphasis supplied.)1wphi1
On the other hand, the accused alleges that he did not commit the crime he was charged with and claims to have not
seen the evidence presented by the prosecution. It was established that he sold the seized drugs to PO3 Enteria during
the buy-bust operation, and that the sachets were found in his possession. These facts establish the elements of Section
5, R.A. 9165. The only issue the appellant raises before us is the noncompliance by the police officer with the correct
procedure for the handling of the evidence seized from him. We have no reason to doubt the police officers who gave
detailed accounts of what they did during the buy-bust operation. Their testimonies have adequately established the
unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs and have led us to affirm the conviction of the accused.
The credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts. The time-tested doctrine is that the
matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge.
Unlike appellate magistrates, it is the judge who can weigh such testimonies in light of the witnesses demeanor and
manner of testifying, and who is in a unique position to discern between truth and falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will
not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses. This is especially true
when the trial courts findings have been affirmed by the appellate court. For them the said findings are considered
33
generally conclusive and binding upon this Court, unless it be manifestly shown that the trial court had overlooked or
34
arbitrarily disregarded facts and circumstances of significance. Thus, we affirm the assailed Decision of the appellate
court and uphold the conviction of the accused.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 2634, People of the Philippines v.
Cipriano Cardenas y Gofrerica dated 19 February 2009, is AFFIRMED in all respects.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
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 Courts Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

Footnotes

Rollo, pp. 2-12. The Decision dated 19 February 2009 of the CA Second Division was penned by Associate
Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justice Portia Alino-Hormachuelos and former CA
(now Supreme Court) Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza.
2
RTC Records, pp. 144-146. The Decision dated 03 January 2007 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-114312 was
penned by Presiding Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.
3
RTC Records, p. 1.
4
Id. at 17.
5
Id. at 144.
6
TSN, 14 March 2003, p. 12.
7
Id. at 11.
8
RTC Records, p. 148.
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
Id. at 7.
12
This initial result was followed by the issuance of an official report by the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp
Crame denominated as Chemistry Report No. D-002-03 dated 07 January 2003, which states that the qualitative
examination yielded positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. This was marked as
Exhibit "G" for the prosecution; RTC Records, p. 10.
13
The three plastic sachets were individually marked and weighed as follows: "CC-1" 0.01 gram; "CC-2" 0.01
gram and "CC-3" 0.03 gram. RTC Records, pp. 9-10.
14
Id. at 1.
15
TSN, 26 April 2005, p. 3.
16
TSN, 30 May 2005, pp. 4-6.
17
Supra note 2.
18
Supra note 1.
19
Rollo, p. 33.
20
Id. at 34.
21
Id. at 36.
22
Id. at 41.
23
People v. Ara, G.R. No. 185011, 23 December 2009, 609 SCRA 304.
24
People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, 14 August 2009, 596 SCRA 350.
25
G.R. No. 186390, 02 October 2009, 602 SCRA 783.
26
Rollo, pp. 35-36.
27
Supra note 23.
28
TSN, 14 March 2003, pp. 14-18.
29
TSN, 29 September 2004, pp. 9-10.
30
Id. at 12-13.
31
TSN, 29 September 2004, p. 17.
32
G.R. No. 183656, 04 September 2009, 598 SCRA 537.
33
People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, 16 October 2009, 604 SCRA 250.
34
People v. Daria, Jr., G.R. No. 186138, 11 September 2009, 599 SCRA 688.