Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

SPECIAL SIXTEENTH (16th) DIVISION

****
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR NO. 36890
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:
*
LANTION, J.A.C.,
-versus- Acting Chairperson,
SORONGON, E.D., and
AZCARRAGA-JACOB, M.C., JJ.

SONNY SESE y OCON,

Accused-Appellant. Promulgated:

APR 13 2016
x--------------------------------------------- --------------x
DECISION
SORONGON, E.D., J. :

Failure to physically inventory and photograph the shabu seized

from an accused in the manner prescribed by law do not invalidate his
arrest or render said drug inadmissible in evidence if its integrity and
evidentiary value remain intact. It could still be utilized in determining
the guilt or innocence of the accused.1

This is an appeal from the June 30, 2014 Decision 2 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 2 in Criminal Case No. 13-296251,
finding Sonny Sese (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of illegal possession of drugs punishable under Section 11 (3),
Article II of Republic Act 91653 (RA 9165). The Information4 which
originally charged him with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
punishable under Section 5 in relation to Section 26 of the same law reads:

That on or about April 5, 2013, in the City of Manila, Philippines,

* Acting Chairperson vice J. Ricardo R. Rosario per Office No. 126-16-RDC dated April 8, 2016
1 People of the Philippines v. Montevirgen, G.R. No. 189840, December 11, 2013.
2 Rollo, pp. 41-49.
3 Otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”.
4 Records, p. 1.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 36890
DECISION
Page 2

the said accused, conspiring and confederating together with one whose
true name, real identity and present whereabouts are still unknown, and
mutually helping each other, 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 one (1)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT FOUR
THREE FOUR (O.434) gram of white crystalline substance known as
Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law.5

THE ANTECEDENT FACTS

At around 3:10 in the morning of April 5, 2013, the Chairman of Brgy.

19, Zone 2, Tondo, Manila, Jesus Fajardo, Jr. (Chairman Fajardo) was
informed by his constituents that there will be a transaction of illegal drugs
in Sta. Barbara St., Tondo, Manila, involving acccused-appellant, who was
previously detained for a previous theft incident and was only under
probation.6 To confirm the report, he went to Sta. Barbara St. and at a
distance of 7 to 8 meters, he saw an unidentified person handing money to
accused-appellant and the latter getting something from his pocket. 7 He also
saw accused-appellant heating a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline
substance with a lighter.8 As he walked towards accused-appellant and the
unidentified companion, the latter walked away leaving the former behind.
Fortunately, he was able to get hold of accused-appellant. 9 Then, he brought
the latter to the barangay hall for blotter where they were able to recover
plastic sachets with shabu, a disposable lighter and money of Philippine
currency worth four hundred twenty persos (P420.00). 10 Thereafter, he
brought him to Gat Andres Hospital for a medical examination.11

At around 9 o'clock in the morning of the same day, Chairman Fajardo

submitted accused-appellant as well as the items recovered from him to
SPO1 Elymar Garcia (SPO1 Garcia), the police officer on duty at Police
Station 2, Tondo, Manila.12 SPO1 Garcia marked the items recovered from
accused-appellant as follows: (1) a small transparent plastic sachet which
contains 0.434 gram of white cystalline substance marked as “SSO”; (2)
disposable lighter marked as “SSM”13; and (3) blue plastic container marked
5 Id.
6 TSN dated January 21, 2014, pp. 3-4.
7 Id., pp. 4-5.
8 Id., p. 4.
9 Id., pp. 5-6.
10 Id., pp. 6-7.
11 Id., p. 8; See Medico-Legal Report, Records, p. 14.
12 TSN dated November 6, 2013, pp. 2-3.
13 Based on the Receipt/Inventory of Seized Evidence, Records, p. 9 and Chain of Custory Form, Records,
CA-G.R. CR NO. 36890
DECISION
Page 3

containing 6 pieces of empty plastic sachets marked as “SS-1” to “SS-6”.14

An inventory of the confiscated items was prepared by SPO1 Garcia at the
police station which was signed by Chairman Fajardo, the arresting officer. 15
He likewise prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination16 of the items
which he himself delivered to the crime laboratory. 17 As per Chemistry
Report No. D-242-13,18 the small transparent plastic sachet which contains
0.434 gram of white cystalline substance was positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride also known as shabu.

Accused-appellant denied the charge against him. 19 According to him,

at around 3 o'clock in the morning of April 5, 2013, he was sleeping at his
“kariton” or cart parked near Almario Elementary School.20 When he woke
up, he decided to pass through a street to look for his wife. 21 When he
reached the corner of the street, he saw a man standing at the corner who
turned out to be Chairman Fajardo. When they were almost face to face, he
was surprised when Chairman Fajardo grabbed his shirt and said: “Tang-ina
mo ka! Malaki ang perwisyong ginawa mo sa akin. Pati ako nilagay mo sa
alanganin.”22 He said that Chairman Fajardo was referring to a complaint
against him regarding a theft incident at a videoke place owned by a certain
colonel for which he was detained but was able to escape. He claimed that
Chairman Fajardo was almost removed from his position because he was
blamed for his escape.23 He also denied ownership of the plastic sachets
recovered from him.24 He recalled that after he was frisked, Chairman
Fajardo was able to recover P400.00 from his pocket and placed the same on
a table together with some plastic items which are used to wrap peanuts and
shabu.25

THE RULING OF THE RTC

As herein earlier stated, a Decision 26 was issued by the RTC

convicting accused-appellant of the crime of illegal possession of drugs
punishable under Section 11(3) under Article II of RA 9165 and not of the
p. 12, the disposable lighter was marked as “SSO2”.
14 Supra note 12, p. 3.
15 Id., pp. 3, 8.
16 Records, p. 7.
17 Supra note 12, p. 5.
18 Records, p. 8.
19 TSN dated May 26, 2014, p. 14.
20 Id., p. 4.
21 Id..
22 Id., p. 5.
23 Id., pp. 5-9.
24 Id., p. 10.
25 Id., pp. 10-12.
26 Supra note 1.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 36890
DECISION
Page 4

crime of illegal sale of drugs punishable under Section 5 of the same law.
The RTC held that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of sale or
offer to sell illegal drugs since the prosecution failed to establish the identity
of the buyer who was able to flee before Chairman Fajardo could approach
him and acccused-appellant.27 Nonetheless, since the sale of dangerous drugs
necessarily includes possession of the same, accused-appellant should be
convicted of possession.28 The fallo of the decision provides:

WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered,

finding accused, Sonny Sese y Ocon, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of violation of Section 11(3) of RA 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14
years and 4 months as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.

The specimen is forfeited in favor of the government and the

Branch Clerk of Court, accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to
turn over with dispatch and upon receipt the said specimen to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal in
accordance with the law and rules

SO ORDERED.29

Hence, the present appeal.

THE ISSUE

WHETHER THE RTC ERRED IN CONVICTING

ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION
11(3), ARTICLE II OF RA 9165

OUR RULING

In appealing his conviction, accused-appellant argues that the RTC

erred in convicting him as the prosecution failed to establish the identity and
integrity of the allegedly confiscated drugs constituting the corpus delicti of
the crime.30 He advances that the arresting officers did not comply with the
procedure laid down by the law. Although there was a physical inventory of
the confiscated items, the same was not conducted at the place of arrest.
Likewise, there was no mention of any representative from the media, the
Department of Justice, or any elected official who was present during the
said inventory.31
27 Rollo, pp. 46-47.
28 Rollo, p. 47.
29 Rollo, p. 49.
30 Rollo, p. 34.
31 Rollo, p. 36.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 36890
DECISION
Page 5

We sustain the guilty verdict of the RTC on accused-appellant.

In prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under

Section 11, Article II of the same law, the following elements must concur:
(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified as a
prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.32

All the elements in the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous

drugs were also established. First, the prosecution was able to seize from the
accused-appellant a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance
which when examined yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride
also known as shabu, an illegal drug.33 Second, accused-appellant did not
adduce evidence showing his legal authority to possess the shabu. Third,
accused-appellant failed to adduce evidence that his possession of shabu was
without his knowledge or that the same was not freely and consciously done.
In a catena of cases, the Supreme Court held that mere possession of a
regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or
animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory
explanation of such possession. In other words, the onus probandi is shifted
to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.34
Based on these premises, accused-appellant was correctly charged with and
convicted for illegal possession of shabu.

Accused-appellant draws attention to the failure of the apprehending

officers to comply with Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. 9165
regarding the physical inventory of the seized items. The provision reads:

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

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

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
32 People v. Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, August 16, 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 342-343.
33 See Chemistry Report No. D-242-13, Records, p. 8.
34 People v. Dela Rosa, G. R. No. 185166,26 January 2011, 640 SCRA 635,650.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 36890
DECISION
Page 6

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;

The above provision is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the

Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, thus:

(1) 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.

Despite the defects in the physical inventory of the seized items, the
prosecution was able to prove the unbroken chain of custody of the items
seized. “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 use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition.35

The witnesses for the prosecution were able to categorically testify

that the dangerous drugs were found in the possession of accused-appellant
during his arrest. As shown by the Receipt/Inventory of Seized Evidence,36
signed by the seizing officer, Chairman Fajardo, he was able to seize from
accused-appellant the following items: (a) one (1) piece small transparent
plastic sachet containing 0.434 gram of white cystalline substance marked
35 Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002
36 Records, p. 9.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 36890
DECISION
Page 7

“SSO”; (b) one (1) disposable lighter marked “SS02”; and (c) blue plastic
container marked as “SS” containing 6 pieces of empty plastic sachets with
markings “SS-1” to “SS-6”. SPO1 Garcia testified that he was the one who
prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination37 and this request,
together with the illegal drugs, were duly delivered by himself to the Manila
Police District (MPD) Crime Laboratory Office Headquarters. As per
Chemistry Report No. D-242-13,38 duly admitted by the RTC, the heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing 0.434 gram of white cystalline
substance with the marking “SSO” was positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The Chain of Custody Form39 likewise
proved that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized were well-
preserved. After the arrest of accused-appellant, the seized items were turned
over by Chairman Fajardo to SPO1 Gacia who then, handed them to
Erickson L. Calabocal, Police Chief Inspector and Forensic Chemist of the
MPD.

Under the foregoing circumstances, there was no hiatus or confusion

in the confiscation, handling, custody and examination of the shabu. The
illegal drugs that were confiscated from accused-appellant, taken to the
police headquarters, subjected to qualitative examination at the crime
laboratory, and finally introduced in evidence against accused-appellant
were the same illegal drugs that were confiscated from him when he was
caught in flagrante delicto possessing the same. Chairman Fajardo even
testified in open court that the shabu in a plastic sachet with a marking
“SSO” is the same shabu that he recovered from accused-appellant which he
turned over to SPO1 Garcia . Thus:

Q: What did you recover from Sonny?

A: I was able to recover from him a lighter, a container, a plastic
containing plastic sachets and a shabu as well as money, ma'am.

Q: If those will be shown to you, will you be able to recognize them?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: I am showing to you this sachet, Mr. Witness, marked as B-1, will you
go over the same and tell us if that is one you earlier mentioned?
A: Yes, sir.

Court interpreter:
Witness identified Exhibit B-1 with marking SSO and according to
the witness this is the same shabu he got from the accused.

37 Records, p. 7.
38 Supra note 33.
39 Records, p. 12.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 36890
DECISION
Page 8

Q: Why do you know that this is the same shabu that you recovered from
accused Sonny Sese?
A: Because there was an initial.

Q: What is the initial?

A: Sonny Sese, I put his initial, ma'am.

Q: You were the one who put this marking SSO?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: You said that, aside from this, Exhibit B-1, you also recovered a
plastic container, what is the color of that plastic container?
A: Blue.

Q: And what does it contain?

A: Six (6) small plastic sachets, ma'am.

Q: Those were empty or ...?

A: Empty, ma'am.

Q: And where are those evidenc[e] now?

A: They were together, ma'am.

Q: That you turned over?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: To whom?
A: SPO1 Garcia.40

The prosecution’s evidence clearly established an unbroken link in the

chain of custody, thus removing any doubt or suspicion that the shabu and
drug paraphernalia had been altered, substituted or otherwise tampered with.
The unbroken link in the chain of custody also precluded the possibility that
a person, not in the chain, ever gained possession of the seized evidence. In
other words, it is apparent from the above disquisition that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the items seized were well-preserved.41

In a catena of cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that in cases

involving illegal possession of illegal drugs, what is of utmost importance is
the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as it would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence
of the accused.42 Besides, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that non-
compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not
necessarily render the items seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation
40 Supra note 10.
41 People v. Bontuyan, G.R. No. 206912, September 10, 2014.
42 People v. Rosialda, G.R. No. 188330, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 507, 521.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 36890
DECISION
Page 9

inadmissible.43 Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required

if there is a clear showing that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items have been preserved, i.e., the items being offered in court as
exhibits are, without a specter of doubt, the very same ones recovered in the
buy-bust operation.44 Hence, once the possibility of substitution has been
negated by evidence of an unbroken and cohesive chain of custody over the
contraband, such contraband may be admitted and stand as proof of the
corpus delicti notwithstanding the fact that it was never made the subject of
an inventory or was photographed pursuant to Section 21 (1) of RA 9165.45

Applying the foregoing principles to the present case, the failure of the
prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical
inventory of the confiscated items does not ipso facto render inadmissible in
evidence the items seized from accused-appellant. Besides, there is a proviso
in the implementing rules of RA 9165 stating that when it is shown that there
exist justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the evidence have been preserved, the seized items can still be used in
determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.46

In fine, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the

prosecution, the denial of the accused-appellant fails. Courts generally view
the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused
can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative
and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing
thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.47

Likewise, against the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution,

accused-appellant's defense of frame-up cannot be given credence similar to
his defense of denial. He insinuates that the accusation of Chairman Fajardo,
who almost lost his position when he escaped from detention, was only the
latter's way of retribution. Frame-up has been invariably viewed by the
Supreme Court with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted and is a common
and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be

43 People v. Joel Roa, G.R. No. 186134, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 359, 371-372, citing People v. Pringas,
G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842-843; People v. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717,
February 5, 2010, 611 SCRA 706, 718; People v. Capco, G.R. No. 183088, September 17, 2009, 600
SCRA 204, 213; People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 494, 507.
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 People v. Manalao, G.R. No. 187496, February 6, 2013, 690 SCRA 106, 119.
47 Zalameda v. People, G. R. No. 183656,4 September 2009, 598 SCRA 537, 556.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 36890
DECISION
Page 10

proved with strong and convincing evidence. 48 Unfortunately, accused-

appellant failed to provide any. The presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the RTC on the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses, shall prevail over his self-serving
and uncorroborated defenses of denial and frame-up.

Also, it is a well-entrenched principle that findings of fact of the trial

court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect
when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative,
arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.
The rationale behind this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to
decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and
observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. 49 This Court
does not find any convincing reason to depart from the ruling of the RTC.

Of equal importance is the propriety of the penalties imposed by the

trial court against accused-appellant, which We find in accord with the
provisions of RA No. 9165, the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), and in
line with recent jurisprudential pronouncements.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The June 30, 2014

Decision50 of the RTC of Manila, Branch 2 in Criminal Case No. 13-296251
is AFFIRMED in all respects.

SO ORDERED.

EDWIN D. SORONGON
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

JANE AURORA C. LANTION

Associate Justice

48 People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009.

49 People v. Cruz, G. R. No. 187047, 15 June 2011,652 SCRA 286,297-298.
50 Supra note 2.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 36890
DECISION
Page 11

MARIE CHRISTINE AZCARRAGA-JACOB

Associate Justice

C E RT I FI CAT I O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.

JANE AURORA C. LANTION

Acting Chairperson, Special Sixteenth (16th) Division