3l,.c.µ111.

Jlic of tlJl' ~PIJiliµµincs

~u.prrnrr <!Court
;Jll!lm1iln

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 243796

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

CAGU IOA,
-versus- REYES, J., JR.,
LAZA RO-JA VI ER,
LOPEZ, and
GAERLAN, JJ *
ROWENA BUNIEL y RAMOS
and ROWENA SIMBULAN y
EN CARNADO, Promulgated:
Accused,
SEP O8 2020
ROWENA BUNIELy RAMOS,
Accused-Appe llant.
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------x

RES OLUTI ON

LOPEZ, J. :

For consideration of this Cou rt is the Decision I dated M ay 3 1, 2017

of the Cow1 of A ppeals (C A) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08192, which
affirmed in toto the Jo int Decision2 dated March 16, 20 16 of the Regional
Tri al Cou rt, Bra nch 13 of the City of Manila, in C ri m inal Case Nos.
12-29 1642 and 12-291643, fi nding the accused-ap pellant Rowena Bunie l y
Ramos (in C ri m inal Case No. 12-29 1642) g uilty of v iolation of Section 5,3
A rticle II of Republi c Act (RA) No. 9 l65 : 1

* Per rame dated June 29, 2020.

1
Rollo, pp. 2-27; penned by Assoc iate Justice Fernanda Lam pas Pera lta, with the concurrence o f Associate
Justices Jane A urora C. Lantion and Victoria l ~abel A. Paredes. Sec also C A rullo, pp. I 12-136.
CA rollo, pp. 58-65; penned by Judge Emilio Rodolfo Y. Legaspi Ill. See nlso records, pp. 209-2 17.
1
· SEC. 5. Sole, Trading. A c/111im.1·/rt1lion. J)ispe11salin11. /)e/ivc1y Dislrihulion and Transpurtalion <!l
Dangeru11s Dmgs and/or Controlled Precursors .md Essential Chemicals. - T he penalty xx x shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unle~s authori zed by law. shall sell. trade, admin ister, d ispense. deliver.
give away to another, d istri bute. di,:;patch in lran sil or transport any dangerous drug, including any and al l
species or opium poppy rega rdless o r the q11anlity and pur ity involved, or shall act as a broker in any or
such transnctions.
~ An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of~002, Repealing Repub lic Act No. 642S.
O ther wise Known as T he Dangerous Drugs /\ct of 107'2. A s /\m ended, Provid ing Funds Therefor, A nd
for Other Purposes, .lune 7. 200:?..

) --- .
 Resolution 2 G.R. No. 243796

ANTECEDENTS

Rowena Buniel y Ramos a.lea "Weng" and Rowena Simbulan y

Encarnado were separately charged with [llegal Sale and Illegal Possession
of Dangerous Drugs, respectively, in two informations that read:

Criminal Case No. 12-291642

Illegal sale of dangerous drugs

The undersigned accuses ROWENA BUNIEL y RAMOS @

"WENG" of a violation of Section 5, Article JI, [RA No.] 9 165, committed
as follows:

That on or about May 30, 2012 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,
unlmvfully and knowingly sell or offer fo r sale to a police officer/poseur
buyer one (1) heat-scaled transpilrcnt plastic sachet marked as "TK"
containing ZERO POINT ONE ZERO FIVE (0.105) gram of white
crystalline substance known as "shabu", which after a qualitative
exam ination gave positive result to the test fo r methamphetamine
hydrochlorid e, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5 (Emphasis in the ori ginal.)

Criminal Case No. 12-291643

Illegal possession of dangerous drugs

The undersigned accuses ROWENA SIMBULAN y

ENCARNADO of a violation of Section 11 (3), Article II, [RA No.] 9165,
committed as fo llows:

That on or about May 30, 2012, 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 marked as "Tl(l" containing ZERO POINT
ONE FOUR ZERO (0.140) gram ofvvhite crystal line substance commonly
known as "shabu", which after a qualitative examination gave positive
resul t to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LA W. 6 (Emphasis in the original.)

The two cases were consolidated .7 On June 21 , 2012, both accused

were arraigned and they pleaded not guilty to their respective charges. 8 Joint
trial then ensued.

The prosecution presented Pol ice Officer (PO) 2 Dennis Reyes as

witness. Meanwhile, the parties agreed to stipulate on the testimony of

5
Records, p. 2.
6
/d.at3.
7
Id. at 1-3.
a Id. at 50, 5 1: nncl pp. 52 m1cl 54.

f
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 243796

forensic chemist Police Chief lnspector (PCl) Elisa G. Reyes (PCI Reyes), 9
PO3 Archie Bernabe (PO3 Bernabe), 10 PO3 John Alfred Taruc (PO3
Taruc), 11 PO3 Modesto Borne 1, Jr. (PO3 Bornel), 12 PO3 Christopher
Palapal (PO3 Palapalf' and Rene Crisostomo. 14

The version of the prosecution is that, in the afternoon of May 30,

2012, a confidential informant arrived at the Manila Police District (MPD),
District Anti-Illegal Drugs, Special Task Group (DAID-SOTG) and reported
that he made a deal with a certain Weng for the del ivery of sample shabu
worth Pl ,000.00. 15 According to the informant, he agreed to meet with
Weng at Tiago Street comer Karapatan Street, Sta. Cruz, Mani la at l 0:00
p.m. of the same day. 16 With this informat ion, the DAID-SOTG organized a
buy-bust operation composed of Police 1nspector Eduardo Vito Pama, PO2
Reyes, PO3 Taruc, PO3 Borne! and PO3 Palapal. 17 During the briefing,
PO2 Reyes was designated as the poseur-buyer. 18 He was provided with the
buy-bust money, a I 000-peso 19 bill, which he marked with his initials
"DR." 20 Meanwhile, PO3 Taruc prepared the Authority to Operate2 1 and
Pre-Operation Report, 22 and the team coordinated with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency. 23

At about 9:30 p.m., the buy-bust team and the informant went to
Tiago Street corner Karapatan Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila to conduct the
buy-bust. They arrived at around I 0:00 p .111. 24 PO3 Taruc, Borne! and
Palapal alighted from the vehicle first and strategically positioned
themselves at about 15-20 meters from the area. 25 PO2 Reyes and the
informant alighted next and they proceeded to the agreed place. 26

At that time, there were no people around and it was drizzling. 27 After
a while, PO2 Reyes saw two women coming from Tiago Street. 28 The
informant whispered to PO2 Reyes that the smal l woman sporting short hair
and wearing walking shorts and t-shirt was Weng. 29 The informant

,, I d. at 74-76.
10
Id. al 115-1 16.
11
hi. at 120-121.
12 Id.
13
Id. at 139-143.
11
' I d. at 127-128.
15 TSN, J anua ry I 7, 20 13, p. 5. See a lso Prosecution's Exhib its, pp. 5-6.
16
Prosecution's Exh ibi ts, p. 5.
17
Id. at 5-6.
18
TSN, January 17, 20 13, p. 6.
19
Prosecution's Ex hibits, p. 16.
20 TSN, Jan uary 17, 20 13, pp. 6-7.
21 Prosecution 's Ex h ibits, p. 11.
22
Id. at 12.
2> TSN, J a nuary 17, 20 I 3, p. 7.
24
Id. at 4-5, 9. See a lso records, pp. 120- 12 1; p. 139.
25 ld.at9- I0.
26
Id. al 10.
21 Id.
8
~ / cl. at I 0- I I .
29
Id. at I 1-12.

I
Resolution G.R. No. 243796

approached Weng and they conversed briefly. 30 Meanwhile, Weng's

companion was standing about two meters away from them and observing
them. 3 1 Then, the informant introduced P02 Reyes to Weng as the buyer of
sample shabu.32 Weng said "akin na po," referring to the payment for the
shabu, to which P02 Reyes handed her the buy-bust rnoney.33 Weng placed
the money in her right pocket, took out from the same pocket a small plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance, and gave it to P02 Reyes. 34
Upon receipt of the sachet, P02 Reyes removed his bull cap, which was the
pre-arranged signal that the sale was consummated. 35 The back-up team
rushed to the area. P02 Reyes searched Weng and recovered from her right
pocket the buy-bust money. 36 Next, he frisked Weng's companion and
recovered from her a srnalJ plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance. 37 As rain poured, the team decided to proceed to the police
station. 38

At the MPD DAID-SOTG office, Weng was identified as accused

Buniel and her companion, Simbulan. In the presence of Rene Crisostomo, a
member of the media connected with tabloid Remate, 39 P02 Reyes marked
the plastic sachet subject of the sale with "TK;' and the sachet recovered
from Simbulan with "TK l."40 P02 Reyes conducted the inventory 4 1 and
prepared the Receipt of Property/Evidence Seized 42 and the Chain of
Custody Form. 43 Meanwhile, P03 Bernabe took photographs.44 He also
prepared the Requests for lnquest 45 and Laboratory Examination, 46 and
Booking Sheets and Arrest Report.'17 Thereafter, P02 Reyes turned over the
plastic sachets and buy-bust money to P03 Bernabe. 48

P03 Bernabe brought the specimens and the request for laboratory
examination to the crime laboratory, 49 and were received by forensic
chemist PCl Reyes.50 PCI Reyes conducted qualitative examination on the
two specimens and found the contents positive for Metharnphetamine

]U Id. at 12- 13.

31
Id. at 13.
3
~ Id. at 13-14.
33 Id. at 14.
34
Id. at 14-15.
35
Id. at 16.
36
Id. at 16-1 7.
31
ld.M 17.
38
/cl.at 19.
39
Records, pp. 127-128.
40
TSN, September I 3, 20 I3, p. 6. See a!so Prosecution ·s Exhibits. p. 14.
41
Id.at?.
4
~ Prosecution's Exhibits, p. I 3, Receirt or Property/Evidence Seized.
4
:i Id. at 14.
44
TSN, September 13, 201 3, pp. 12-13. See also records. pp. 115-1 i6; and Prosecution 's Exhibits, p. 15.
45
Prosecution's Ex hib its, p. 4.
46
Id. at I .
47
Id. at 7-8.
48
TSN, September 13, 2013, pp. 7, 12. See ulso records, pp. 74-76; pp. 115-116, Order; and Prosecution's
Exhibits, p. 14.
4
" Records, pp. I l 5-1 16. See also Prosecut ion' s E.~llibits, p. I.
50
Id. a! 74-76.
Resol ution s G.R. No. 243796

Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu." 51 She reduced her findings in

Chemistry Report No. D-443-12. 52 Thereafter, PCI Reyes presented the
specimens to the prosecutor and the defense counsel. After, she turned them
over to the prosecution for safekeeping. 53

For the defense, only Buniel testified. She denied the charges and
claimed that on May 30, 2012, she went to Simbulan's house to pick-up
blood sugar strips for her mother. About 8:00 p.m., S irnbulan accompanied
her along T iago Street to get a ride home when three men on board a van
arrived. The men forced her and Simbulan to get on the car and they were
brought to the MPD DAlD-SOTG where they were investigated, mauled and
fo rced to admit to selling dangerous drugs. Buniel averred that the poli ce
officers to ld her that they wil l cooperate with her in excha nge for
PJ00,000.00.54

On March 16, 2016, the trial court rendered a decision conv1ct111g

Buniel of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and acquitting Simbulan of illegal
possession. 55 The trial court found all the e lements of the crime of jl!egal
sale present and that the prosecution proved an unbroken chain of custody of
the drugs. However, the court was not conv inced on the guilt of S imbulan as
the a11eged look-out and co-conspirator in the drug deal.

Aggrieved, Bun iel filed an appeal to the CA.56

On May 31, 2017, the CA affirmed Buniel's conviction. 57 The CA

found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of
Illegal Sale of shabu. Most importantly, the prosecution was able to establ ish

51 Id.; see also Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 2.

5~ Prosecution' s Exh ibits, p. 2.
5 > Records, p. 75; Minutcs elated November 29, 2013, p. I 14.
54 TSN, September 8, 2015, pp. 3-1 I.
55 CA rollo, p. 64. The dispositive portion or the Decision reads:
In Cri111i11al Case No. I 1-291642
WHEREFORE, in view of the fo rego ing, this Court finds the accused ROWENA BUN IEL y
RAMOS GU ILTY beyond reasonab le doubt as principa l !or violation of Section 5 or Repub lic Act No.
9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Acl of 2002 (for push ing shabu) as
charged and is se ntenced to su ffcr the penalt y ol" LI FE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a Fine in the amount
of P500,000.00.
/11 Cri111i11al Case No. 11-1916-13
WHEREFORE, in vi1..:w of th e lorcgoing, for failure ol" the prosecut ion lo prove her gui lt beyond
reasonab le doubt, this Court linds accused ROW EN A SIMBU LAN y ENCARNADO NOT GU ILTY.
The plastic sachets of shabu are ordered confiscated in h1vor of the govern ment to be disposed of in
accordance with law.
Th is Court orders the immediate re lease li·om detention or ROWENA SIMBULAN y
ENCA RNADO unless she is held for a lawl'ul cause.
Issue a mitti mus order cornrniUing ROWENA BUN IEL y RAMOS lo the Correctional Institut ion
for Women fo r service of sentence.
Send copies or this Decisio n to the Director Genera l or the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA), to the Director of the National Bureau of lnvcsligalion (NB I) and to the D.i rcclo r of the Manila
Pol ice District (EPD).
SO ORDERED. (Underscoring in the original.)
56 CA rollo, pp. 15- 16; records, pp. 220-221 .
57
Rollo, p. 27. The di spos itive portion of the Decision reads:
WI-IEREFOR E, the trial court 's Decis ion elated March 16. 20 16 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.

I
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 243796

an unbroken ch;a in of custody. The CA found the explanation of P02 Reyes

that they were already wet from the rain, thus, they decided to conduct the
marking and in~entory at the police station, justifiable. Further, the alleged
inconsistencies in the testimony of P02 Reyes were inconsequential and had
1

no bearing on the prosecution's cause. Also, that only Crisostomo witnessed

the inventory-taking and did not present proof of his identity was not fatal
because the patities stipulated on Crisostomo's testimony that he signed the
Receipt of Inventory of Property/Evidence Seized as member of the media.
1
Neither did the CA find the failure of the prosecution to present the original
of the buy-bu~t money detrimental to the prosecution's case. The CA
pointed out th~t neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of
any money usep in the buy-bust operation. It was sufficient that the sale of
the dangerous ~rug was adequately proven and that the corpus delicti was
presented in court. I

Hence, t,1is appeal. 58 Accused-appellant and the People manifested

that they will no longer file their respective Supplemental Briefs, taking into
account the thbrough discussions of the issues in their respective appeal
briefs before th~ CA. 59
I

RULING
I
I

We acquit.

In cases jnvolving dangerous drugs, the prosecution bears not only the
burden of proving the elements of the crime, but also of proving the corpus
delicti - the darigerous drug itself. The identity of the dangerous drug must be
established be~ond reasonable doubt. 60 Such proof requires an unwavering
exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the
accused is the ~ame as that seized from him in the first place. 61 It is thus
crucial for the prosecution to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the
seized item. I
I
I
Section 21 ( l ) of RA No. 9165, the law applicable at the time of the
commission of,the crime,62 outlines the procedure that police officers must
adhere to maintain the integrity of the confiscated evidence, viz.:

(1) T he apprehending team hav ing initial c ustody and control of the drugs
shall, immed iate ly after seiz ure and confiscation, physically inventory and
I

photograpln 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 Depatiment of Justice
(DOJ), an~I any e lected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inve ntory and be given a copy thereof.
I

58
Ro!fu, pp. 28-29.
59
ld.at33;id.at39.
r,o People ofthe Philippine.1· v. Suarez. G.R. No. 223 141 , June 6, 20 18, 865 SCRA 281, 290.
<>1 Id.
11
' RA No. 10640 lo9k effect on July 23, 2 014. See OCA C ircular No. 77-20 15 dated April 23 . 20 15.

i
I
I
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 243796

Specifically, Article fl, Section 2 1 (a) of the Implementing Rules and

Regulations of RA No. 9165 enumerates the procedures to be observed by the
apprehending officers to confirm the chain of custody:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having ini tial custody a nd 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 s uch items were confiscated and/or seized, or bi s/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DO.I ), and any e lected public offi c ia l who shall be
required to sign lhe copies of the inventory a nd be given a copy thereof:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the place where the search warra nt is served; or at the nearest police station
or at the nearest office of the apprehendi ng officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that
non-compliance with these requi rements unde r justifiable grounds, as long
as the integrity and the evidentiary val ue of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, sha ll not re nder void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items;

The law and implementing rules mandate that the physical inventory
and photographing of the seized items must be in the presence of the accused
and the following ins ulating witnesses: ( 1) a representative from the media;
(2) the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (3) any elected public official, who
shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy. 63

However, in earlier cases, we clarified that the deviation from the

standard procedure in Section 21 will not ipso facto render the seizure and
custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution
satisfactorily proves that: (1) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance;
and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved. 64 The prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural
lapses and must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
evidence had been preserved. 65 ln People v. Ramos, 66 this Court explained
that in case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses was not
obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove not o nly the reasons for their

"' Under Section 21, Article II, RA No. 9 I 65, as amended by RA No. I0640, it is now mandated that the
conduct of ph ysical inventory and photograph or the seized items must be in the presence of (I) the
accused or the pcrson/s from whom suc h items were con liscatecl and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel, (2) with an elected public official and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service
or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof See also People v.
Bangalan, G. R. No. 232249, September 3, 20 18, 878 SCRA 533, where the Suprenie Court claritied that
the invento ry and photography shall be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the
items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as we ll as certain required witnesses, namely: (I) if
prior to the amendment or RA No. 9 165 by RA No. I0640, "a representative from the media AND the
Department of .Justice, and any elected pub Iic ofticial'\ or (b) if aftn the amend ment of R.A. No. 9 165 by
RA No. I 0640, "an elected public orficial and a representati ve of the National Prosecution Service OR the
media." (Emphas is and underscoring in the origi nal.)
64 People v. Dela Cruz, 59 1 Phil. 259, 27 1 (2008); People v. Nazareno, 559 Phil. 387 (2007); and Pevple F.

Santos, Jr. , 562 Phil. 458 (2007).

" 5 People v. Cadiana, 644 Phil. 686, 694 (20 I0).
(,(, G.R. No. 233744, February 28, 20 18, 857 SCRA 175, quoted in People v. Lim, G.R. No. 23 1989,
September 4, 20 18.

t
Resolution 8 G .R. No. 243796

absence, but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their
attendance:

It i'S well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does
not per se )·ender the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable
reason for 1such failure or a showing of any gen uine and sufficient effort
to secure 1thc required witnesses und er Section 2 1 of RA 9165 must be
adduced. 1111 People v. Um i7wn;:;, 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
1

unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts

were ernplpyecl to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is
to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of
unavail ability, absent actual seri ous attempts to contact the required
witnesses pre unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These
consiclerntions ari se from the fact that police officers are ordinaril y given
sufficient :time - beginning from the moment they have received the
informatio~1I
about the activiti es of the accused unti I the time of his arrest -
to prepare1for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary
arrangeme11ts be forehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly
comply whh the set proced ure prescribed in Section 2 1 of RA 9165. As
such, politeI
oClicers arc cornpellccl not only to state reasons fo r their
noncompliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted
earnest ef~orts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the
given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. (Emphasis in the
original; citation omitted.)
I
Indeed, the presence of the insul ating witnesses is the -first requirement
to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized
drugs. 67 In People v. Caray, 68 we ruled that the corpus delicti cannot be
deemed preserJed absent any acceptable explanation for the deviation from
the procedural requ irements of the chain of custody rule. Similarly, in
Matabilas v. P!eople, 69 sheer statements of unavailability of the insulating
witnesses, witliout actual serious attempt to contact them, cannot justify
non-compliancy.
I

In this c~se, there is no showing that the marking and inventory were
done in the preIsence of the three insulating witnesses. The first and second
1

photographs submitted in evidence only show P02 Reyes marking the plastic
sachets in the presence of accused-appellant and Simbulan; while the third
photograph, th~ buy-bust money and the m arked plastic sachets.70 That the
marking and inventory were done w ithout the insulating witnesses, is evident
in the testimony of C ri sostomo, who is a kagawad of another barangay and a
media practitio~er, that " he did not see the two (2) accused when he signed the
inventory[.]" 7 1

17
' See People 11. Flores, G.R. No. 24 126 1, July 29, 20 I 9; People v. Rodrigue:;:, G.R. No. 233535, July I.
20 19; and People v. Mara/it, G.R. No. 23238 1. /\ug.ust I. 20 18.
68
G.R. No. 24539 1. ,September I I , 20 I 9.
6
" G.R. No. 2436 1S, 1November 11, 20 19.
70
Prosecution's Ex h1ibils, p. 1.5.
71
Records, p. 127. 1

I
Resolution 9 G.R. No. 243796

And, even if Crisostomo was present, he signed in the inventory as a

member of the media. 72 ln the Receipt of Property/Evidence Seized,
Crisostomo is the lone signatory. 73 Meanwhile, the police officers did not
explain the absence of a representative from the DOJ and another elected
public official. 74 To be sure, there was no earnest effort, nay attempt, on the
part of the buy-bust team to comply with the law and its implementing rules.

lt cannot also escape our attention that it was a certain "PO2 J

Rodriguez" who received the request for laboratory examination on the two
specimens from PO2 Bernabe at 23:35 of May 30, 2012, 75 and not PCI Reyes
as claimed by the prosecution. The sti pulated testimony of PC! Reyes fai led to
show how "PO2 J Rodriguez" turned-over the items to her and that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the specimens was preserved, viz.:

The prosecution and the defense also stipul ated on the fol lowing as
regards PCI E lisa G. Reyes and her testimony:

2.) On May 30, 2012, PCl El isa G. Reyes received from PO3 Archie
Bernabe a letter request for laboratory examination dated May
30, 20 12 x x x requesting for the conduct of laboratory
examination on two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets
with markings TK and TK l already mark.eel as Exhibits B-1 to
"B-2";

3.) Upon receipt of the letter req uest fo r laboratory examination as

well as the spec imens, PC[ Reyes conducted a laboratory
examination:
xxxx
6.) PCI El isa G. Reyes wi ll be able to identily the requesl for
laboratory examination, chem istry report, and the spedmens.

7.) Due executi on, existence, and authenticity of the documents i.e.
request for laboratory exami nation and the chemistry report.

8.) PCI Reyes presented the specimens as well as the request for
laboratory examination to the prosecutor and to the defense
counsel and were turned over to the prosecution for safekeeping
purposes and were shown to the defense counsel and ;

9.) PCI Reyes has no personal knowledge with regard to the actual
source of the specimens. 71'

n Records, pp. 127-128.

7·• Prosecution's Exhi bits, p. 13.
74 TSN, January 17, 2013, p. 6.
ATTY . DELOS SANTOS:
Q: T here is [sic] no representative from the OOJ who w itness [sic] the markings?
A: None Sir.
Q: How about an elected Brgy. Official?
A: A lso none Sir. (Emphasis suppl ied.)
75 Prosecution's Exhibits, p. I.
76
Records. p. 75 .
Resolution IO G.R. No. 243 796

fn People' v. Pajarin, 77 this Court ruled that in case the parties agreed to
dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should
be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he had taken
I
the precautionary steps required to preserve the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized item, thus: (I) that the forensic chemist 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 with pending trial. 78

Here, the 1stipulations do not reflect the manner of handling the drugs
(1) after "P02 J Rodriquez" received the items from P03 Bernabe; (2) when
1

he turned them I over to PCI Reyes; and (3) after PCI Reyes completed his
qualitative examination and before they were presented in court. It was simply
declared that PCI Reyes received the specimens from P03 Bernabe and after
examination, sh1e presented the specimens to the prosecutor and the defense
counsel. We stress that in order that the seized items may be considered
credible, the prosecution must show, by records or testimony, the continuous
whereabouts of the exhibit, from the moment the item was picked up to the
time it is offered into evidence; in such a way that every person who touched
the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was
and what happened to it while in the witness' possession; the condition in
which it was received and the condition it was delivered to the next link in the
chain. 79 Such is not the case here.

Finally, the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty

applies only when nothing in the record suggest that the law enforcers
deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law. 80 ft is not
conclusive and it cannot, by itself, overcome the constitutional presumption
of innocence. Thus, any taint of irregularity, as in this case, affects the whole
performance and should make the presumptlon unavailable. 81

Time and again, we emphasize that while zealousness on the part oflaw
enforcement agencies in the pursuit of drug peddlers is i.ndeed laudable, it is
of paramount importance that the procedures laid down by law be complied
with. The breaches in the procedure provided in Section 21 , Article II of RA
No. 9165 committed by police officers and left unexplained by the State,
militate against the conviction of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt,
as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been
compromised.

FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Court of

Appeals' Decision dated May 31, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08192 is
REVERSED. Rowena Buniel y Ramos is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case

77
654 Phil. 46 1 (2011 ), cited in Peupfr " · ,1111hrfls io, G.R. No. 234051, November 27, 2019.
78
Id. at 466.
n See Mali/fin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
80
People v. Que, G. R. No. 2 I 2 fl9•1. January 3 I, 20 10.
81
J>eopfe v. Cap11110, 655 Phi I. '.216, '.244 (10 I I).
Resolutio n 11 G.R. No. 243 796

No. 12-291642 and is ORDERED IMM.EDIATELY RELEASED from

detention, unless she is being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry of
judgment be issued immediately.

Let a copy-of this ~esolution be furnished the Superintendent of the

Correctional Institution for Women, Manclaluyong City, fo r immediate
implementation. The Superintendent is likewise ORDERED to REPORT to
this Court within five days from receipt of this Resolution the action that has
been undertaken.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

IN S. CAGUlOA

(; tu.. / ✓ i~L- LAlRO.,.JA VIER

C. REYlfs, JR. 1••

sociate Justice Associate Justice

~
SAMUEL H. GAERC?:\.N
Associate Justice
Resolution 12 G.R. No. 243796

ATTESTATION

·1 attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to :1e writer of the opinion of the
Cou1i's Division.

CERTI Fl CATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article Vlll of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, 1 certify that the conclusions in the above
Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Di is ion.