SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 229183, February 17, 2021 ]

LEONIDES QUIAP Y EVANGELISTA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RESPONDENT.

RESOLUTION

LOPEZ, J.:

The validity of search and compliance with the chain of custody of dangerous drug are the core
issues in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision dated
September 1, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR No. 37675, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC)
judgment of conviction.

ANTECEDENTS

On March 4, 2011, at around 10:30 a.m., Police Officer (PO) 2 Jerome Garcia (PO2 Garcia)
received a phone call from a confidential asset, who was following one alias "Kacho." The asset told
PO2 Garcia that Kacho was on his way to Sta. Cruz, Laguna to obtain shabu (methamphetamine
hydrochloride).2 Later, the asset called PO2 Garcia again and said that he and Kacho were on
board a passenger jeepney with "Touch Mobile" signage going to Calamba Crossing. The asset
described that Kacho was the small and slightly bald man seated in front of him.3 Immediately, the
authorities organized an entrapment team composed of Police Senior Inspector Jefferson Parra-
Ison, SPO1 Efren Sales (SPO1 Sales), PO1 Ryan Virtrudes, and PO2 Garcia.4 At 10:55 a.m., the
entrapment team proceeded to a gasoline station along the National Highway of Barangay (Brgy.)
Labuin, Pila, Laguna and waited for the target jeepney.5

After five minutes, the identified passenger jeepney arrived and was flagged down.6 PO2 Garcia
boarded the jeepney and directed his attention to the man seated in front of the confidential
asset.7 At that time, Kacho was about to throw out of the window a small object wrapped with
electrical tape but PO2 Garcia held his hand.8 Thereafter, PO2 Garcia asked Kacho to unwrap the
object which yielded a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Garcia
confiscated the sachet and brought Kacho to the police station.9 Thereat, Kacho was identified as
petitioner Leonides Quiap y Evangelista (Leonides). PO2 Garcia marked the sachet with "LQE-1"
and gave it to SPO1 Sales who prepared a request for laboratory examination.10 PO2 Garcia and
SPO1 Sales delivered the seized item to the crime laboratory. SPO2 Macabajon received the item
and the request.11 Afterward, PSI Grace Bombasi (PSI Bombasi) conducted qualitative examination
on the specimen which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.12 Thus, Leonides was
charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 before the RTC,
docketed as Criminal Case No. SC-14520,13 to wit:

That on or about March 4, 2011, in the Municipality of Pila, Province of Laguna and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, not being authorized or pem1itted by
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and
custody one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.18 gram of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu[,] a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.14 (Emphasis supplied.)

Leonides denied the accusation and claimed that on March 4, 2011, at about 11:00 a.m., he was on
board a jeepney going home after visiting his cousin's house in Brgy. Labuin, Pila, Laguna.15 The
jeepney was flagged down, and about two to three men instructed him to alight from the
vehicle.  The men handcuffed, frisked, and brought him to the police station where he was left
ℒαwρhi ৷

incarcerated.

On May 28, 2015, the RTC convicted Leonides of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and ruled
that his denial cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the perfon11ance of police duties.
Moreover, the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated item had been preserved,16 viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused LEONIDES

QUIAP [y] EVANGELISTA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 11,
Article II, R.A. [No.] 9165 and sentencing h[im] to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an
indeterminate term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and
eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
([P]300,000.00).

The specimen of shabu subject of this case with a weight of 0.18 gram is ordered confiscated in
favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to transmit the same to the
appropriate government agency for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.17 (Emphasis in the original.)

Leonides elevated the case to the CA docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 37675. Leonides questioned the
validity of his arrest and raised the failure of the police officers to comply with the proper handling
and custody of dangerous drug, i.e. the marking was not made at the place of seizure, the insulating
witnesses were absent during the physical inventory, and no photograph of the confiscated item was
taken.

On September 1, 2016, the CA affirmed Leonides' conviction. The CA explained that the supposed
defect in Leonides' arrest is deemed waived absent any objection before his arraignment. At any
rate, Leonides was validly arrested without a warrant because he was committing a crime when
the shabu was found in his possession. The CA likewise held that sufficient probable cause exists to
effect a warrantless arrest. Aside from the tipped information, Leonides exhibited suspicious
behavior when he attempted to throw the plastic sachet. The CA gave credence to PO2 Garcia's
testimony that Leonides panicked (nataranta) when asked to unwrap object in his hand. Also,
the shabu was confiscated pursuant to a valid search of a moving vehicle where the police officers
had to act fast as time is of the essence. Lastly, the CA held that Leonides cannot invoke for the first
time on appeal the alleged noncompliance with the rule on chain of custody.18

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated 28 May 2015 of
the Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna, Branch 28 in Criminal Case No. SC-14520, finding
accused-appellant Leonides Quiap y Evangelista guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of
Section 11, Article n of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty
of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight
(8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.19 (Emphases in the original.)

Leonides sought reconsideration but was denied.20 Hence, this recourse. Leonides insists on the
illegality of his warrantless arrest and the inadmissibility of the confiscated item as evidence.
Likewise, Leonides reiterates the lapses in the handling of dangerous drug that compromised the
identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) argues that the instant case involves a valid stop and frisk. Leonides was "nataranta" when
PO2 Garcia flagged down and boarded the jeepney. This is enough reason to raise suspicion that
Leonides is hiding a wrongdoing. Further, the prosecution proved each and every link in the chain of
custody, and established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated item were
preserved.

RULING

Prefatorily, we find that it is too late for Leonides to question the legality of his warrantless arrest in
view of his arraignment21 and active participation at the trial. Neither did he move to quash the
information, hence, any supposed defect in his arrest was deemed waived.22 Even assuming that
Leonides can still impugn the legality of his arrest, the circumstances of this case are akin to a "stop
and frisk" situation. Here, Leonides' unusual and suspicious conduct, and the fact that the police
officers were on an intelligence mission to verify the report of illegal drug activity, created a sufficient
probable cause where search and seizure may be effected without first making an
arrest.23 Differently stated, the apprehending team had a reasonable suspicion, based on the police
officers' experience and the surrounding conditions, that the person to be held had contraband
concealed about him.24 This suspicion was fortified when Leonides attempted to throw out of the
window an object wrapped with electrical tape after PO2 Garcia boarded the jeepney. Leonides even
panicked when asked to unwrap the object which revealed a plastic sachet containing the shabu.
Having established the validity of warrantless arrest and seizure, we now examine Leonides' attack
on the identity and credibility of the confiscated evidence.

In Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of
the offense, and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.25 Thus, it is essential to
ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in
court.26 The prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug
through the following links: (1) the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the
accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer
to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic
chemist for examination; and (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the
court.27 Here, the records reveal a broken chain of custody.

Notably, the alleged crime happened before RA No. 1064028 amended RA No. 9165. Thus, the
original provisions of Section 21 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations shall apply, to wit:

[Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165]

(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.

[Section 21(a), Article 11 of the IRR of RA 9165]

(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. (Emphases supplied.)

In earlier cases, this Court ruled that the deviation from the standard procedure in Section 21
dismally compromises the evidence, unless (1) such non-compliance was under justifiable grounds;
and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team.29 Later, we emphasized the importance of the presence of the three (3)
insulating witnesses during the physical inventory and the photograph of the seized
items.30 In People v. Lim,31 it was explained that in case the presence of any or all the insulating
witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove not only the reasons for their
absence, but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance, thus:

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 [Article II] of R.A. 9165. As such, police officers are compelled
not only to 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. (Emphasis, underscoring, and italics in the original.)

Undeniably, the presence of the insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the
preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.32 In People v. Caray,33 we
ruled that the corpus delicti cannot be deemed preserved absent any acceptable explanation for the
deviation from the procedural requirements of the chain of custody rule. Similarly, in Matabilas v.
People.34 sheer statements of unavailability of the insulating witnesses, without actual serious
attempt to contact them, cannot justify non-compliance.

In this case, the absence of the required insulating witnesses during the inventory and photograph of
the seized item puts serious doubt as to the integrity of the chain of custody. Admittedly, there was
no representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
Worse, there was no attempt on the pru1of the buy-bust team to comply with the law and its
implementing rules. The operatives failed to provide any justification showing that the integrity of the
evidence had all along been preserved. Apropos is the testimony of PO2 Garcia which is silent about
the presence of the insulating witnesses, to wit:

PROSECUTOR:
Q: You said that you brought [Leonides] to the police station and you were the one who was in the
custody of the plastic sachet when you arrived at the police station. What did you do with the plastic
sachet when you arrived at the police station?

A: I marked it with the initials of the suspect, sir.

xxxx

Q: After you have made the markings on the plastic sachet which you found from the accused, what
did you do next?

A: I gave it to SPO1 Sales, the investigator of this case, sir.

xxxx

Q: What did SPO1 Sales do with the plastic sachet of shabu which you have marked?

A: He made a request for laboratory examination, sir.

xxxx

Q: What happened after the request for laboratory examination was prepared by officer Sales with
respect to the said plastic sachet of shabu?

A: He brought the plastic sachet to the crime lab, sir.35

xxxx

COURT: x x x

Q: Where did you ask the accused 10 unwrap [the plastic sachet]?

A: Inside the jeepney, [Ma'am].

Q: Where did you mark the specimen?

A: At the police station, mam.

Q: Have you prepared any inventory of seized evidence?

A: No, [Ma'am].

xxxx

Q: Did you issue any receipt evidencing that you have the specimen which you forwarded to [SPO1
Sales] is the one and the same specimen allegedly confiscated from the accused?

A: No, [Ma'am].
Q: Was it ever reported in any record book that the specimen which you allegedly confiscated from
the accused which you marked at the police station was the same specimen which you have
forwarded in the absence of any receipt, was it ever reported?

A: We have it blottered after we apprehend [sic] alias Kacho.

Q: You mean to say that what you have blottered is the fact of his arrest?

A: Yes, [Ma'am].

Q: And the fact of confiscation?

A: Yes, [Ma'am].

Q: But never the fact of turning it over to the evidence custodian? Not that fact, correct?

A: Yes, [Ma'am].36

Moreover, the link between the investigating officer and the forensic chemist was not established
with certainty. The police officers did not describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the seized item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain
to have possession of the dangerous drug. The records show that SPO2 Macabajon received the
specimen from PO3 Sales. Yet SPO2 Macabajon did not testify on how the seized item fell into the
hands of the forensic chemist PSI Bombasi. The stipulated testimony of PSI Bombasi is insufficient
to explain this gap.37 In People v. Pajarin,38 this Court identified the following matters which are
ordinarily covered by the testimony of the forensic chemist who examines the seized items: (1) that
he received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after
examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it
could not be tampered pending trial.39 Should the parties decide to dispense with the attendance of
the police chemist, they should stipulate that the latter would have testified that he took the
precautionary steps mentioned. Nonetheless, these circumstances were not stipulated by the
parties.

Finally, it must be stressed that while the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the
accused to be presumed innocent, and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The presumption of regularity is disputable, and cannot be regarded as binding
truth.40 Indeed, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is
effectively destroyed.41

In sum, the utter disregard of the required procedures created a huge gap in the chain of custody.
We reiterate that the provisions of Section 21, Article II of RA No. 9165 embody the constitutional
aim to prevent the imprisonment of an innocent man. The Court cannot tolerate the lax approach of
law enforcers in handling the very corpus delicti of the crime. Hence, Leonides must be acquitted of
the charge against him given the prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody.

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated
September 1, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR No. 37675 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Leonides
Quiap y Evangelista is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. SC-14520 and is ORDERED
IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let
entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa
City for immediate implementation. The Director is directed to report to this Court the action taken
within five days from receipt of this Resolution.

SO ORDERED.

Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice, Gesmundo, Inting,* and Rosario, JJ., concur.