Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 > November 2019 Decisions > G.R. No. 237803 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ALLAN ALON-ALON Y LIZARDA , ACCUSED-APPELLANT.:

This is an appeal¹ seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision²�� dated 27 November 2017� of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07364� which affirmed� with modification� the Judgment³�� dated� 18 February 2015 of� Branch 31, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro City, Laguna, finding� accused-appellant� Allan� Alon-Alon� y� Lizarda� (accused-appellant) guilty� beyond� reasonable� doubt� of� violation� of��� Section� 5, Article II� of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165.⁴

Accused-appellant� was� charged�� m� an� Information, ⁵�� the� accusatory portion of which states:

That� on� or� about� August�� 13.� 2012,� in� the� Municipality� of� San Pedro,� Province� of Laguna,� Philippines, and within� the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,� the� above-named accused,� without� legal� authority,� did then� and� there� willfully,� unlawfully and� feloniously sell, distribute� and deliver��� to�� a police��� poseur-buyer�� for�� P300.00��� one�� (1)�� heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu),�� a dangerous drug weighing� 0.02 gram.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Upon�� arraignment⁶���� accused-appellant� pleaded�� not�� guilty⁷ to� the charge. After� pre-trial,⁸ trial on the merits ensued.


Acting� on a confidential� information,� a team was formed� to conduct a buy-bust� operation� against� accused-appellant who was allegedly� engaged� in rampant� illegal� drug trade activities� in San Pedro,� Laguna.�� In the course of the buy-bust� operation,� accused-appellant sold to the poseur-buyer a plastic sachet� containing suspected� shabu� and,� in exchange,�� obtained� payment� in the�� amount�� of�� Three�� Hundred��� Pesos�� (Php�� 300.00).��� Upon�� arrest of accused-appellant,� the�� buy-bust�� team�� immediately� marked�� the�� buy-bust money� and� the� plastic� sachet� subject� of� the sale.�� The��� inventory� and the taking� of the photographs of the seized� items,� however,� were� only done� at the police station ⁹� in the presence of accused-appellant and a member of the media.

The� seized� items� were� brought� to� the� crime� laboratory� for examination. Per Chemistry Report No. D-627-12, the specimen� was found positive for Methamphetamine� Hydrochloride.¹⁰


Accused-appellant� denied the allegations against him. He claimed that in the evening of 13 August 2012,� he was talking to a certain Angie, one of his tenants, when three (3) men arrived and entered his house. The men introduced themselves as police officers and ordered� them to bring out the shabu they were hiding. When he and Angie protested,� the police officers started� searching� his� house.� Unable� to� find� anything,� the� police� officers invited him to the police station for questioning where he was made to sign a piece of paper.� Eventually, he was charged for violation of Section 5, Article II ofRA 9165. ¹¹


On�� 18� February�� 2015,�� the�� RTC�� rendered�� its�� Judgment,¹² ��� the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE,� foregoing considered, judgment� is� hereby rendered finding Accused Allan Alon-Alon y Lizarda GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The period of his preventive imprisonment should be given full credit.

Let the plastic sachet of shabu subject matter of this case be immediately forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for its� disposition� as provided� by� law. The� P300.00� buy-bust� money� is ordered�� forfeited�� in� favour�� of� the� government� and�� deposited�� 111� the National� Treasury� through the Office of the Clerk of Court.

SO ORDERED.¹³

The�� CA�� affirmed� the�� Judgment� of�� the�� RTC�� and�� held�� that�� the prosecution� clearly�� established� the� elements� of� illegal�� sale�� of� shabu.� It further�� declared� that� the� chain�� of� custody� was� not�� broken�� despite�� non� compliance� with�� the� requirements� provided�� in� Section� 21� of�� RA 9165, as� the� prosecution was� able� to� establish that� the� integrity and� evidentiary value� of the seized� item were� preserved from� its seizure until� its presentation in court. ¹⁴

The� CA affirmed with� modification the� penalty�� imposed� by the RTC, in that accused-appellant shall� be ineligible for parole. ¹⁵

Hence, this appeal.


The sole� issue� in this case� is whether the CA correctly found� accused� appellant guilty� beyond� reasonable doubt� of�� illegal� sale� of dangerous drugs under RA 9165.


The appeal� is meritorious.

An� appeal�� in criminal�� cases� throws� the� whole� case� open� for� review, and� the appellate court� has the duty� to correct, cite,� and� appreciate errors� in the appealed judgment, whether or not assigned or unassigned. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penallaw.¹⁶

Accused-appellant was charged with the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs,� defined� and penalized� under Section� 5, Article� II of RA 9165.� To secure� a� conviction� for� illegal� sale� of� dangerous�� drugs,� the following� essential� elements� must� be established:� (a)� the� identities� of the buyer� and� the seller,� the� object� of� sale,� and� consideration;�� and� (b)� the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. Material� in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the sale took place, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti as evidence. ¹⁷

In cases involving dangerous drugs, the confiscated� drug constitutes the very corpus� delicti� of the offense, and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.¹⁸ Jurisprudence teaches that� it is essential that the identity of� the seized drug be established with moral certainty, ¹⁹�� and�� must�� be� proven�� with�� exactitude�� that� the substance�� bought�� during�� the�� buy-bust�� operation�� is� exactly�� the� same substance offered in evidence before the court.²⁰� In order to obviate any unnecessary� doubts� on� such� identity,� the� prosecution�� has� to� show� an unbroken chain of custody over the same.²¹

Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized� movements and custody of the seized drugs at each stage, from the time of confiscation to receipt for forensic laboratory examination� until their presentation� in court for� destruction.²²��� Section� 21� of� RA� 9165� laid� out� the� procedure��� to� be followed by police officers:

Section�� 21. Custody� and�� DL position� of�� Confiscated,� Seized, and/or� Surrendered� Dangerous� Drugs,� Plant� Sources� of� Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.- The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,� controlled�� precursors� and essential� chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia� and/or�� laboratory�� equipment� so� confiscated. seized� and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The�� apprehending� team�� having�� initial�� custody��� and control� of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically� inventory� and photograph the same in� the�� presence�� of� the� accused�� or� the�� person/s� from whom�� such�� items� were� confiscated and/or� seized,�� or his/her representative or counsel,� a representative from the� media� and� the� Department of Justice (DOJ), and any� elected� public� official� who� shall� be� required to sign the copies of the inventory� and be given a copy thereof[.](Emphasis supplied)

The chain of custody� rule was further expounded in the Implementing Rules� and� Regulations�� of� RA� 9165.� Article� II,� Section� 21 (a)� detailed� the procedure� as follows:

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,��� 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[.]

Based� on the� foregoing� provision,� the Court� enumerated�� 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.²³��� The chain of custody rule requires the testimony as to every link in the chain, describing how and from whom the seized evidence was received, its condition� in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain, and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity.²⁴

As to the first link

The first link speaks of seizure and marking which should be done immediately at the place of arrest and seizure. It also includes the physical inventory� and taking� of� photographs� of� the� seized� or� confiscated� drugs, which should be done in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official,²⁵ pursuant to Section 21, Article II ofRA 9165, the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged offense.

In this case, the physical inventory and taking of photographs were conducted in the presence of the accused-appellant, with only a representative from the media.�� The two (2) other required witnesses, i.e., a representative from the DOJ and an elected public official, were absent:

[Pros. De Leon:] What did you do after you arrived at the police station?[P03 Avila:] We called the media man, conducted inventory, and we took pictures of the item together with the suspect and the media man, sir. ²⁶

As to the second and third links

According� to� prosecution� witness� P02�� Rick� Jaison� Almadilla,� he turned over the seized items to P03� Pio Pievro Avila (P03 Avila)- one of the arresting officers, and not to the investigating officer, as mandated under the� law. Likewise,� it was P03 Avila who� brought� the same� to� the crime laboratory.²⁷ There was no mention, however,� on how he handled the said specimen�� while� it� was� m� his� custody�� until� he� brought�� it� to� the� cnme laboratory.

As to the fourth link

Forensic chemist Lalaine Ong Rodrigo testified that she received the specimen�� from� their� receiving�� clerk,� and� turned�� it� over� to� the� evidence custodian for�� safekeeping� after�� her� examination��� thereof.�� She�� likewise retrieved�� the� same�� from� the� evidence�� custodian�� before� presenting�� it� in court.²⁸ However,�� the� evidence�� custodian�� was� not� presented�� in� court� in clear� disregard�� of� the� mandate� that� every� link� in� the� chain� must� testify, describing the condition of the seized item when it was delivered, and the precautions� taken to ensure its integrity.²⁹

All the foregoing� facts show a breach� in each of the link of the chain of custody, casting doubt as to the integrity� of the seized item.

To restate,� the� physical� inventory� and� taking� of� photographs of� the seized item were done in the presence of accused-appellant and a mere representative from the media as witness.� In People v. Seguiente,³⁰� the Court acquitted� the accused� because of the absence� of a DOJ representative during the conduct� of inventory� and taking� of photographs. In said case, the Court keenly� noted� that� the� prosecution� failed� to� recognize� said� deficiency�� and concluded� that said lapse, among others, effectively� produced� serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti.

As regards� the absence� of a testimony� from� P03 Avila as to how he handled�� the� seized�� item� from�� receipt�� until� he� brought�� it� to� the� crime laboratory,� said� testimony� is imperative.� To be sure,� the� probability� on the integrity� and� identity� of the corpus� delicti� being compromised is present� in every�� storage�� or� transportation� of� the� prohibited�� item,�� be� it� from�� the Philippine��� National��� Police�� crime�� laboratory��� directly�� to�� the�� court�� or otherwise.³¹�� Also, the non-presentation of the evidence� custodian� in court is similarly� fatal� to the prosecution's cause.� In People� v.� Ubungen,³²� the Court ruled� that� absent� any testimony� on the� management,� storage,� and preservation of the seized illegal drug, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established.

The prosecution� failed�� to

Section 21 of RA 9165

It bears stressing� that what� makes� the observance� of� the chain� of custody even more crucial is that the shabu allegedly� sold by the accused� appellant was only 0.02 gram.³³� In People v. Holgado,³⁴ the Court declared that the 5 centigrams (0.05 gram) of shabu seized was miniscule; hence, the need for exacting compliance with Section 21 ofRA 9165, thus:

While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground� for� acquittal,� this� circumstance� underscores� the� need� for� more exacting compliance� with Section 21. In Malillin v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is� greatest when the� exhibit�� is� small� and� is� one�� that� has� physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. ³⁵ (Citations omitted)

Despite� the� clear� failure� of the� police� officers� to� strictly� adhere� to Section�� 21� of�� RA� 9165,�� We� are� cognizant�� that�� the�� same�� provision nevertheless provides a saving clause. It states that non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary�� value�� of� the� seized�� items�� are� properly�� preserved�� by� the apprehending� officer� or� team,� shall� not� render� void� the� seizure� of,� and custody� over� said� items.� However,� this� clause� applies� only� where� the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter cited� justifiable grounds,³⁶� which� must� be accompanied� by evidence� that� the integrity� and evidentiary value of the items are preserved.³⁷����� Furthermore,� in People v. De Guzman,³⁸�� it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must� be� proven� as� a� fact,� because� the� courts� cannot� presume� what� these grounds� are or whether they even exist.

In this case, the saving� mechanism� of Section� 21 cannot� be applied as the� prosecution�� not� only� failed� to� acknowledge� the� infirmity,� much� less provide justification for the breaches in the links of the chain of custody.

Given the foregoing procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the� identity� of� the� seized� drug.�� The� prosecution� failed� to� fully� prove� the elements� of the offense charged,� creating� a reasonable� doubt on the criminal liability� of the accused-appellant.³⁹ Consequently, there is no recourse� but to acquit accused-appellant.

WHEREFORE,�� the� appeal�� is� hereby�� GRANTED.�� The�� assailed Decision� dated� 27 November� 2017 rendered� by the Court of Appeals� in CA� G.R. CR-HC� No.� 07364� is REVERSED� and� SET ASIDE.�� Accordingly, accused-appellant ALLAN ALON-ALON� y LIZARDA� is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution� to prove his guilt beyond reasonable� doubt.� He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention,� unless he is detained� for any lawful cause.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT� this� Decision� and� to� report� to� this� Court� the� action� taken hereon within five� (5) days from receipt.

SO ORDERED.

Leonen, J., (Chairperson), Gesmundo,* Carandang, Lazaro-Javier,** and Zalameda, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

---

*On leave.

** Designated as additional� Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 2728.

¹� Rollo, pp. 16- I 8.

² Id. at 2-15; penned by CA Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) and Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring.

³ CA rollo, pp. 86-91; penned by� RTC Presiding Judge Sonia T. Yu-Casano.

⁴Comprehensive� Dangerous Drugs Act of2002.

⁵ Records, p. I.

⁶Id. at 38.

⁷ Id.

⁸ Id. at 43-44.

⁹Rollo, pp. 5-6.

¹⁰ Id.at6-7.

¹¹ TSN, 16 September 2014, pp. 4-7.

¹² CA rollo, .pp. 86-91.

¹³ Id. at 91.

¹⁴ Rollo,� pp. 9-14.

¹⁵ Id. at 14.

¹⁶Cunanan v. People, G.R. No. 237116, 12 November 2018.

¹⁷People v. Alvarado, G.R. No. 234048, 23 April 2018, 862 SCRA 521, 534.

¹⁸Derilo v. People, 784 Phil. 679-694 (2016); G.R. 190466, 18 April2016, 789 SCRA 517, 525.

¹⁹Largo v. People, G.R. No. 201293,� 19 June 2019.

²⁰�� People� v. Bartolini, G.R. No. 215192, 27 July 2016, 798 SCRA 711.

²¹� People v. Ching, 819 Phil. 565-581� (2017); G.R. No. 223556, 09
October 2017, 842 SCRA 280.

²² See Section� l(b) of Dangerous� Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.

²¹People� v. Baltazar.� G.R. No. 229037,29 July 2019.

²⁴ People v. Havana, 776 Phil. 462-476 (2016); G.R. No. 198450, 11 January 2016,778
SCRA 524.

²⁵� Id.

²⁶ TSN, 12 November 2013, p. 9.

²⁷� TSN,26June2014,p.10;TSN, 12November 2013,pp.10-ll.

²⁸ TSN,� 17 September 20 13, p. 3.

²⁹ Supra at note� 24.

³⁰ G.R. No. 218253,20 June 2018,867 SCRA 268.

³¹� People v. Carlit, G.R.� No. 227309, 16 August� 2017.

³²�� G.R. No. 225497, 23 July 2018.

³³ Records, p. I.

³⁴ 741 PhiL 78 (2014); G.R. No. 207992, 11 August 2014,732 SCRA 554.

³⁵� G.R. No. 207992, 11 August 2014, 732 SCRA 554, 576.

³⁶ People v. Hementiza, G.R. No. 227398, 22 March 2017, 821 SCRA 470, 494.

³⁷� People v. Ga-a, G.R. No. 222559, 06 June 2018, 865 SCRA 220,260.

³⁸��� 630 Phil. 627-655 (201 0); G.R. No. 186498, 26 March 2010, 616 SCRA 652, 662.

³⁹People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212-239 (2015); G.R. No. 212196, 12 January 2015,745 SCRA 221,248.