l\epublic of tbe jbilippineg

iupreme lourt
:fflnnila TIME: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

FIRST DMSION

PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, G.R. No. 229509

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Present:

BERSAMIN, CJ
-versus - DEL CASTILLO,
JARDELEZA,
GESMUNDO, * and
CARANDANG, JJ.

BABYLYN MANANSALAy CRUZ, Pwmulgated: __ .

Accused-Appellant. JUL ol 2019
x----------------------------------------------------

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

In yet another drug-related case, the Court is constrained to acquit the

offender for non-compliance with the chain of custody rule laid down in Section 21
ofRepublic Act (RA) No. 9165 1•

On appeal is the February 9, 2016 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA)

in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07017 which affinned the September 8, 2014 Joint
Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 13, in Criminal
Case Nos. 11-288493-94 convicting Babylyn Manansalay Cruz (appellant) of the
crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or
shabu, under Sections 5 and 11 (3), Article II of RA 9165, or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Factual Antecedents

Pertinent portions of the two Informations charging appellant are quoted

below: ~I
7
• On official leave.
1 AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,
REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
2 CA rollo, pp. 86-103; penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate
Justices Rodil V. Zalameda and Pedro B. Corales.
3
Records at pp. 110-118; penned by Judge Emilio Rodolfo Y. Legaspi III.
 Decision 2 G.R. No. 229509

Criminal Case No. 11 [-}288493

That on or about December 8, 2011, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the

said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver, transport or
distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly sell or offer for sale to a police officer/poseur-buyer ZERO POINT
ZERO ONE TWO (0.012) [gram] of white crystalline substance known as
"shabu" placed in a transparent plastic sachet marked as "DAID" containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

Criminal Case No. 11[-}288494

That on or about December 8, 2011 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the

said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession and under her
custody and control one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero
point zero two three (0.023) gram of white crystalline substance known as "shabu"
marked as "DAID-1" containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

Arraigned thereon, appellant entered a negative plea to both indictments. 6

Version ofthe Prosecution

The prosecution anchored its case mainly on the testimony of PO3 John
Alfred Taruc (PO3 Taruc), which testimony is summarized, as follows:

In the morning of December 8, 2011, a confidential informant came to the

Manila Police District (MPD) District Anti-Illegal Drugs - Special Operations Task
Unit (DAID-SOTU) to report that he had set a drug deal at 6:00 p.m. at Taft Avenue,
comer Kalaw Street, with a certain alias "Bek Bek", 7 later identified as herein
appellant. 8 Acting on said information, the Chief ofDAID-Special Operation Task
Group (SOTG), PCINSP Robert Casimiro Domingo, formed a buy-bust team9 with
PO3 Taruc as poseur-buyer 10 and SPOl Melany Amata (SPOI Amata), PO3
Modesto Bomel, and PO3 Enrique Lalu as back-up. 11 The buy bust money
consisting of one Pl,000.00 bill bearing serial no. HW675766 12 was marked with ~
/
4
Id. at 2.
5
Id.at3.
6
Id. at 33.
7
TSN, April 5, 2013, pp. 5-6.
8
Id. at 27.
9
Records, p. 2 I.
to TSN, April 5, 2013, p. 8.
11
Id.at9.
12
Records, p. 26
 Decision 3 G.R. No. 229509

PO3 Taruc's initials. 13 The team arrived at the target area at 6:00 p.m. 14 Upon
meeting appellant, the confidential informant introduced PO3 Taruc as the buyer of
theshabu. 15 PO3 Taruc then gave appellantthemarkedPl,000.00 bill. 16 Appellant
placed the marked money in the right pocket of her pants 17 and brought out a small
plastic sachet18 containing a white crystalline substance which she handed over to
PO3 Taruc. Thereafter, PO3 Taruc removed his bull cap, which was the pre-
arranged signal, to summon the back-up operatives to come forth as the transaction
had been consummated. 19 Appellant was then immediately arrested and ordered to
empty her pockets. 20 The marked money and another plastic sachet of shabu were
recovered from appellant.21 PO3 Taruc proceeded to mark the purchased plastic
sachet as "DAID" and the other sachet as "DAID-1" while SPOl Amata took
pictures. 22 An inventory of the seized items was then made in the presence of one
media representative named Rene Crisostomo. 23 After the inventory, appellant was
brought to the office of the MPD DAID24 and the seized items were turned over to
the Police Investigator, PO2 Voltaire S. Yap (PO2 Yap), and to Police Inspector
Eduardo Vito Pama (PI Pama) who then prepared and signed the request for
laboratory examination of the seized items. 25 After this, PO3 Taruc and PI Pama
brought the specimen to the crime laboratory. 26 The seized items were received by
forensic chemist PI Elisa G. Reyes (Forensic Chemist Reyes), who then conducted
tests on the white crystalline substance contained in the two plastic sachets, both of
which tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
commonly known as shabu. The results of the laboratory test were contained in
Chemistry Report No. D-1211-11. 27

Version ofAppellant

The appellant denied the accusations against her. Appellant testified that, in
the afternoon of December 8, 2011, at around 2:30, she went to visit her husband at
the Manila City Jail. After the visit, she boarded a jeepney on her way home.
Subsequently, five men in civilian attire likewise boarded the jeepney and instructed
her to alight therefrom. She was then taken to the DAID office where the police
officers demanded money for her release. " /

13
TSN, April 5, 2013, p. 6.
14 Id. at 10
15
Id. at 11.
16
Id. at 12.
11 Id.
18
Id. at 13.
19 Id.
20
Id. at 15.
21 Id.
22
Id. at 16-17.
23
Id. at 20
24
Id. at 21
25
Records, p. 9
26
TSN, April 5, 2013, p. 23.
27
Records, p. 10.
28
TSN, August 29, 2014, pp. 3-14.
 Decision 4 G.R. No. 229509

Ruling ofthe Regional Trial Court

On September 8, 2014, the RTC of Manila, Branch 13, rendered its Joint
Decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections
5 and 11 ofRA 9165.

The RTC upheld the validity of the buy-bust operation and gave more
credence to the testimony of P03 Taruc than to the denial of appellant because it
found no ill motive on the part of the police officers to falsely accuse appellant. The
RTC likewise found that the chain of custody of the seized items was established
by the prosecution.

The RTC thus disposed of it, this wise -

In Criminal Case No. 11-288493

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused

BABYLYN MANANSALA y CRUZ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as
principal for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (for pushing shabu) as charged
and she is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay
a Fine in the amount of PS00,000.00.

In Criminal Case No. 11-288494

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused

BABYLYN MANANSALA y CRUZ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as
principal for violation of Section 11 (3) of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (for possession of
shabu) as charged and she is sentenced to suffer imprisonment in an indeterminate
penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and to pay a Fine
in the amount of P350,000.00.

xxxx

SO ORDERED.29

Ruling ofthe Court ofAppeals

On appeal, appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove the

integrity of the seized shabu as the apprehending officers did not stric~{ ~
comply with the Chain of Custody Rule spelled out in Section 21 of RA 9 I /v _

29
Records, pp. 116-117.
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 229509

In its Decision of February 9, 2016, the CA denied the appeal. In affirming

the RTC Decision, the CA ratiocinated that all elements of the crime of illegal sale
of shabu were duly established by the evidence presented by the prosecution. 30 The
CA, like the RTC, found that the testimony of PO3 Taruc deserved more credence
since testimonies of the police officers in dangerous drug cases carry with them the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. 31 The CA held
that as between the categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses and the bare
denial of appellant, the former must perforce prevail. 32 The CA further declared
that in these two cases, the links in the custody of the seized drugs were duly
established, to wit: first, PO3 Taruc recovered the shabu from appellant; second,
PO3 Taruc made a physical inventory of the confiscated items in the presence of a
media representative and then turned it over to the assigned police investigator, PO2
Yap, who prepared the request for laboratory examination; third, PO2 Yap and PO3
Taruc transmitted the seized shabu to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory Office for examination; and fourth, Forensic Chemist Reyes issued
Chemistry Report No. D-1211-11 stating that the specimen yielded positive result
for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 33

Undeterred, appellant instituted the instant appeal insisting that her guilt had
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Our Ruling

There is merit in the present appeal.

While generally the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, are binding
and conclusive upon this Court, a careful examination of the records of the case
reveals that the lower courts overlooked some significant facts and circumstances
which, if considered in their true light, must compel appellant's exoneration.

It is axiomatic of course, that to secure the conviction of the appellant, all the
elements of the crime charged against her must be proven. And among the
fundamental principles to which undivided fealty is given is that, in a criminal
prosecution for violation of Section 5 and Section 11 of RA 9165, as amended, the
State is mandated to prove that the illegal transaction did in fact take place; and there
is no stronger or better proof of this fact than the presentation in court of the actual
and tangible seized drug itself mentioned in the inventory, and as attested to by the
so-called insulating witnesses named in the law itself. Hence, it is the prosecution's
burden to establish the integrity of the dangerous drug, this being the c o ~

30
Rollo, pp. 8.
31
Id.atl6-17.
32
Id. at 17.
33
Id. at 16.
 Decision 6 G.R. No. 229509

delicti of the case. 34 This presupposes that an unbroken chain of custody over the
subject illegal drug, from the time of its confiscation until its presentation in court,
must be clearly and sufficiently proved. 35

The Chain of Custody Rule is embodied in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165,

the law applicable at the time of the commission of the crimes charged, and
provides:

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

Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources ofDangerous 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.

(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 under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within
twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That
when the volume of the 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, however, That a final certification
shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same
within the next twenty-four (24) hours.

xxxx

Plainly stated, "the provision requires that: ( 1) the seized items be inventoried
and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical
inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused~

34
People v. Vistro, G.R. No. 225744, March 6, 2019.
35
People v. Tumangong, G.R. No.227015, November 26, 2018.
 Decision 7 G.R. No. 229509

his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative

from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all
of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
of the same and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory
within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination."36

The Court understands that strict compliance with the above-mentioned rule
is not always possible. However, in case of non-compliance therewith, the
prosecution is mandated to prove that (a) there was justifiable ground for non-
compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were
properly preserved. 37

Here, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to comply with the rule
requiring the presence of the three insulating witnesses. As can be gleaned from the
testimony ofP03 Taruc, only one out of the three required witnesses was present at
the time of seizure and apprehension, viz.:

Q: In that inventory appears a name with signature of P03 [Taruc], do

you know who is this person?
A: Yes Sir.

Q: Whose signature appears over the name of that person?

A: That is my signature Sir.

Q: In this Inventory also appears a name of Rene Crisostomo as witness.

Do you [know] who is this person?
A: A media person Sir.

Q: And whose signature appears over the name of this person?

A: Rene Crisostomo Sir.

Q: How were you able to know that the signature that appears over the
name of Rene Crisostomo was indeed his signature?
A: I was there when he signed that document Sir.

Q: Now Mr. Witness when you [were] preparing this Inventory where was
the accused at that time?
A: She was beside me Sir. 38

In the landmark case of People v. Lim,39 this Court stressed the importance
ofthe presence ofthe three insulating witnesses and ruled that where they are absent,
the prosecution must allege and prove the reasons for their absence and l i k e ~

36
People v. Casco, G.R. No. 212819, November 28, 2018.
37
People v. Dumagay, G.R. No. 216753, February 7, 2018.
38
TSN, April 5, 2013, p. 20.
39
G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 229509

show that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance. The Court
explained:

It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the
physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to
reason/s such as:

(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest

was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate
retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in
his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in
the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts
to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an
elected public official within the period required under Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code prove[d] futile through no fault of
the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with
arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the
anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential
assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence
of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.

Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be

proven. People v. Ramos teaches:

It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses

does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However,
a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and
sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21
of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held
that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in
contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer
statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an
explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for
other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a
flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent
actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are
unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These
considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily
given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they have
received the information about the activities of the accused until the
time of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and
consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing
full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure
prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are
compelled not only to [the] state reasons for their non-compliance, but
must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts
to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given
circumstances, their actions were reasonable.

Regrettably, in this case the prosecution made no effort at all to explain or

justify why two of the three required witnesses - a representative from the DOJ ~
 Decision 9 G.R. No. 229509

an elected public official - were not present during the buy-bust operation against
appellant, nor did it show that earnest efforts were in fact exerted to secure or obtain
their presence or attendance thereat

This Court, in People v. Malana, 40 took the view that a buy-bust team can
easily gather the three required witnesses, considering that its operation is, by its
nature, a planned activity. Here, the apprehending team had more than enough time
to comply with the requirements under RA 9165. P03 Taruc himself testified that
they received the tip from their confidential informant in the morning of December
8, 2011. 41 Then, they immediately made preparations for the buy-bust operation
which took place later that day at 6:00 p.m. 42 Therefore, it is safe to say that the
buy-bust team had ample time to comply with the requirements of the law had they
exerted the slightest of efforts. Needless to say, this failure is not helped by the fact
that during the trial, the prosecution utterly failed to offer any explanation for non-
compliance with the law.

The Court, in a plethora of cases,43 has repeatedly stressed that the presence
of the required insulating witnesses at the time of the inventory is mandatory, and
that their presence thereat serves both a crucial and a critical purpose. Indeed, under
the law, the presence of the so-called insulating witnesses is a high prerogative
requirement, the non-fulfillment of which casts serious doubts upon the integrity of
the corpus delicti itself - the very prohibited substance itself - and for that reason
imperils and jeopardizes the prosecution's case. 44

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The February 9, 2016 Decision

of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07017 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, appellant Babylyn Manansala y Cruz is ACQUITTED on
reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from
detention, unless she is being lawfully held for another cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent, Correctional

Institute for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. The said
Superintendent is DIRECTED to report the action taken to this Court, within five
(5) days from receipt of this Decision. ~

40
G.R. No. 233747, December 5, 2018.
41
TSN, April 5, 2013, p. 5.
42
Id. at 6.
43
People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 761 (2014); People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018;
People v. Callejo, G.R. No. 227427, June 6, 2018; People v. Pagsigan, G.R. No. 232487, September 3,
2018; Mapandi v. People, G.R. No. 200075, April 4, 2018; Ramos v. People, G.R. No. 233572, July 30,
2018; People v. Lumudag, G.R. No. 201478, August 23, 2017.
44
People v. Gay/on, G.R. No. 219086, March 19, 2018.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 229509

SO ORDERED.

~
~

~ /
0 C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

WECONCUR:

(On official leave)

ZA ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO
Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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.