APRIL 16, 2018

G.R. No. 233325

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs
PASTORLITO V. DELA VICTORIA, Accused-Appellant
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal 1 filed by accused-appellant
Pastorlito V. Dela Victoria (Dela Victoria) assailing the Decision2 dated April 7,
2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01428- MIN, which
affirmed the Decision3 dated March 25, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan
City, Branch 4 (RTC) in Crim. Case No. 13139, finding Dela Victoria guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA)
9165,4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Facts
This case stemmed from an Information5 filed before the RTC charging Dela
Victoria with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized
under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the accusatory portion of which state:
Crim. Case No. 13139
That on or about 10:35 o'clock [sic] in the morning of October 9, 2008 at
Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully[,] and feloniously sell and deliver to a [poseur-buyer] for a
consideration of ₱500.00 marked money[,] one (1) small sachet of white
crystalline [ methamphetamine hydrochloride]  otherwise known
as ["shabu"]  weighing zero point zero one zero six (0.0106) gram, which is a
dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
The prosecution alleged that on October 8, 2008, a police asset informed
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office that Dela Victoria,
who is on the PDEA's watchlist of drug personalities, was selling drugs at Langihan
Road comer Ong Yiu Road, Brgy. San Ignacio, Butuan City. 7 After conducting
surveillance, a buy-bust team was formed, which was composed of PDEA
Operatives Investigation Officer (IO) I Sotero B. Ibarra, Jr. (IOI Ibarra), as the
designated poseur-buyer,8 and IO1 Rodelio M. Daguman, Jr. (IO1 Daguman), as
the arresting officer,9 among others. On October 9, 2008, the buy-bust team,
together with the asset, proceeded to the target area. As soon as Dela Victoria
saw them, he approached the asset and the latter introduced IO1 Ibarra as a
cousin interested in buying shabu.  Dela Victoria asked if he had money and IO1
Ibarra replied, "aw-matic,"  giving the marked ₱500.00 bill, while Dela Victoria
simultaneously handed over one (1) plastic sachet of suspected shabu.  After
inspecting the same, IO1 Ibarra made a "missed call" to IO1 Daguman, the pre-
arranged signal, by which time, Dela Victoria started to walk away. However, the
operatives caught up and arrested Dela Victoria in front of a tinsmith's
shop. 10 They then brought Dela Victoria inside the PDEA vehicle where an initial
search was conducted, and the marked money was recovered. Thereafter, they
went to the PDEA - Regional Office XIII (Libertad, Butuan City) where IOI Ibarra
marked the confiscated sachet, prepared the inventory, 11 and took
pictures, 12 while Dela Victoria remained inside the car until Barangay Captain
Florencio M. Cafiete arrived. 13 After securing the necessary letter-request, 14 IO1
Ibarra delivered the sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory where it was received by
Police Chief Inspector Cram well T. Banogon, who confirmed that the substance
inside the seized sachet tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 15
For his part, Dela Victoria denied the charges against him, claiming that at
10:30 in the morning of October 9, 2008, he was making a "taho" container in
their family-owned tin shop, when a person approached, pointed a gun, and
arrested him for allegedly selling drugs. He averred that he was forced to board a
PDEA motor vehicle, where he was repeatedly asked questions. When they
arrived at the PDEA Office, he was shown a ₱500.00 bill and a small cellophane,
both of which, he claimed were merely planted by the PDEA operatives in order
to charge him with the said crime. 16
The RTC Ruling
In a Decision17 dated March 25, 2014, the RTC found Dela Victoria guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and
accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of ₱500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 18
The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements
of illegal sale of dangerous drugs as it was able to prove that: (a) one (1) sachet
of shabu was sold during the buy-bust operation; (b)  Dela Victoria was positively
identified as the seller of the said dangerous drug; and (c) the dangerous drug
was in the custody of 101 Ibarra from the time of the sale until it was marked by
him. 19 Moreover, the RTC ruled that there was substantial compliance with the
procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 even if the marking and
inventory were done at the PDEA Office.20
Aggrieved, Dela Victoria appealed21 to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision22 dated April 7, 2017, the CA affirmed Dela Victoria's
conviction for the crime charged. 23 It found the presence of all the elements of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs through IO1 Ibarra's testimony. On the other hand,
it did not find Dela Victoria's defense of planting of evidence substantiated.
Further, the CA held that while the requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA
9165 were not perfectly adhered to by the PDEA operatives, since the marking of
the sachet was done at the PDEA Office and not in the presence of Dela Victoria,
the integrity and evidentiary value of the same were shown to have been duly
preserved. It noted that IO1 Ibarra's marking on the confiscated sachet was
clearly indicated on the Certificate of Inventory, Letter-Request for Examinations,
and Chemistry Report submitted.24
Hence, this appeal.
The Issue Before the Court
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly
upheld Dela Victoria's conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the
entire case for review and, thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct,
cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned
or unassigned. 25 "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the
case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment
appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal
law."26
In this case, Dela Victoria was charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
Notably, in order to properly secure the conviction of an accused charged with
illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove: (a)  the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment. 27
Case law states that the identity of the prohibited drug must be established
with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral
part of the corpus delicti  of the crime. Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary
doubt on its identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody
over the same and account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment
the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime.28
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the police
officers must follow when handling the seized drugs in order to preserve their
integrity and evidentiary value.29 Under the said section, prior to its amendment
by RA 10640, 30 the apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after
seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized
items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were
seized, or his 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 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.31 In the case of People v.
Mendoza,32 the Court stressed that "[w]ithout the insulating presence of the
representative from the media [and] the [DOJ], [and] any elected public official
during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching,
'planting' or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts
conducted under the regime of [RA] 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972)  again
reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure
and confiscation of the [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the  corpus
delicti,  and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of
the accused. Indeed, the xx x presence of such witnesses would have preserved
an unbroken chain of custody."33
The Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict
compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not
always be possible.34 In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA
9165 - which is now crystallized into statutory law with the passage of RA
1064035 - provides that the said inventory and photography may be conducted at
the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in instances of
warrantless seizure, and that non-compliance with the requirements of Section
21, Article II of RA 9165 - under justifiable grounds - will not render void and
invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items so long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer or team.36 In other words, the failure of the apprehending
team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA
9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto  render the seizure and custody over the
items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves
that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.37 In People v.
Almorfe,38 the Court explained that for the above-saving clause to apply, the
prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been
preserved.39 Also, in People v. De Guzman,40 it was emphasized that the justifiable
ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot
presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.41
In this case, the Court finds that the PDEA operatives committed unjustified
deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into
question the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from
Dela Victoria.
First, records show that IO1 Ibarra failed to mark the confiscated sachet in
the presence of the accused, Dela Victoria.1âwphi1 During trial, IO1 Ibarra
testified that:
 [Prosecutor Felixberto L. Guiritan] Q: How about that sachet of shabu you
brought on buy-bust? What did you do to it?
[IOI Ibarra] A: It was in my possession, sir.
Q: What did you do to it?
xxxx
A: I just got hold of it and when we arrived in the office I placed marking
42
on it.
xxxx
[Defense Counsel Atty. Jesus A. Tantay] Q: It seemed that the barangay
captain arrived first in your office before the accused was photographed? Or that
Mr. Witness the accused arrived first but he was not taken out of the vehicle not
unless the barangay captain would arrive, correct?
[IOI Ibarra] A: We did not let the accused disembark from the vehicle until
the arrival of the barangay captain because we immediately fetched the
barangay captain x x x.
Q: So it means that you really had enough time to do anything to the
accused while he was confined and away from the public inside the vehicle?
A: We were just talking to him inside the vehicle, sir.
xxxx
Q: So everything from photographing of the alleged evidence; marked
money, shabu and the making of the certificate of inventory, making of the
request for laboratory examination, etc. were done in the office?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x 43 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
As may be gleaned above, IO1 Ibarra marked the seized sachet and
prepared the certificate of inventory at the PDEA Office. Notably, these were not
done in the presence of Dela Victoria since at that time, he was being held inside
the PDEA vehicle while waiting for the barangay captain to arrive.
In this relation, it deserves pointing out that the said marking and
preparation of inventory were not even done at the place of arrest or at the
nearest police station. While Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 allows the same to
be conducted at the nearest office of the apprehending team, if practicable, the
prosecution in this case, did not even claim that the PDEA Office was the nearest
office from the tinsmith's shop where the drugs were seized. When cross-
examined on this point, IO1 Ibarra stated that:
[Defense Counsel Atty. Jesus A. Tantay] Q: I noticed that, and this is a public
knowledge, that the tinsmith's shop that we are referring to is just very near
the Langihan Police Station than your office which is just around six kilometers
from the scene, is not that correct?
[S02 Ibarra] A: Yes, sir, that is true.
 Q: But you did not bother to refer first, out of some respect to that office
which has jurisdiction over the place, to report the incident and where you could
properly or conveniently mark the shabu or other evidence, Mr. Witness?
A: We no longer stopped by their office, sir.
Q: But if you chose to do it you could have done it Mr. Witness?
A: It is not our practice to stop by the police station, sir.
Q: But it could have been the practice of your office to go to the barangay
hall, which has jurisdiction over the crime scene Mr. Witness, where you could
make the inventory or perhaps photographing of the evidence and where you
could summon or request the barangay officials to sign the inventory, is that
correct?
A: We just called up the barangay captain and requested him to proceed to
our office because he was already in his house, sir.
x x x x44 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
As mentioned above, the Langihan Police Station and the San Ignacio
Barangay Hall have a closer proximity to the place of arrest than the PDEA Office.
IO1 Ibarra's explanation that it is "not [their] practice to pass by the police
station" hardly justifies a deviation from the rule. In fact, contrary to IO1 Ibarra's
claim, the barangay captain admitted that he was actually at the barangay hall
when he was summoned by the PDEA operatives on the date of the
incident.45 Thus, transporting the seized items all the way to the PDEA Office for
marking and inventory, when the same could have been immediately done at the
Langihan Police Station or at the San Ignacio Barangay Hall, casts serious doubts
on the integrity of the confiscated drug. In People v. Dahil,46 the Court explained
that:
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is
vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding
handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the
evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other
similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until
they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing
switching, planting or contamination of evidence.
It must be noted that marking is not found in R.A. No. 9165 and is different
from the inventory-taking and photography under Section 21 of the said law. Long
before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, however, this Court had consistently held
that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast
reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.47
Second, there was no DOJ representative during the conduct of the
inventory and no justification given for the absence.48 Records show that it was
only the barangay captain and the media representative who signed the inventory
when they separately arrived and were shown the confiscated items and the
inventory only after affixing their signatures:
[Defense Counsel Atty. Jesus A. Tantay] Q: The only one who was able to
sign the inventory Mr. Witness was the barangay captain?
[S02 Ibarra] A: There was also one member of the press who was able to
sign the inventory.
Q: Of course the barangay captain and the media man did not go together
to your office, they arrived alternately?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: There was no representative from the DOJ at that time, correct?
A: Yes, sir, there was none.49 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The mere marking of the seized drugs, as well as the conduct of an
inventory, in violation of the strict procedure requiring the presence of the
accused, the media, and responsible government functionaries, fails to
approximate compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.50 The presence of
these personalities and the immediate marking and conduct of physical inventory
after seizure and confiscation in full view of the accused and the required
witnesses cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality.51 While
non-compliance is allowed, the same ought to be justified. Case law states that
the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were exerted by the PDEA
operatives to comply with the mandated procedure as to convince the Court that
the attempt to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. Since this
was not the case here, the Court is impelled to conclude that there has been an
unjustified breach of procedure and hence, the integrity and evidentiary value of
the corpus delicti  had been compromised.52 Consequently, Dela Victoria's
acquittal is in order.
As a final note, the Court finds it fitting to echo its recurring
pronouncement in recent jurisprudence on the subject matter:
The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug
addiction and commends the efforts of our law enforcement officers against
those who would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the
susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more
so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every
individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The Constitution covers
with the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty alike against any
manner of high-handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their
intentions.
Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding
the right of the individual in the name of order. [For indeed,] order is too high a
price for the loss of liberty. x x x.53
 "In this light, prosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the positive
duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 [, Article II] of
RA 9165, as amended. As such, they must have the initiative to not
only acknowledge but also justify any perceived deviations from the said
procedure during the proceedings before the trial court. Since compliance with
this procedure is determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of
the corpus delicti and ultimately, the fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact
that any issue regarding the same was not raised, or even threshed out in the
court/s below, would not preclude the appellate court, including this Court, from
fully examining the records of the case if only to ascertain whether the procedure
had been completely complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist
to excuse any deviation. If no such reasons exist, then it is the appellate court's
bounden duty to acquit the accused, and perforce, overturn a conviction. "54
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 7, 2017 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01428-MIN is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Pastorlito V.
Dela Victoria is ACQUITTED of 'the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully
held in custody for any other reason.
SO ORDERED.
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice
Chairperson
ALFREDO BENJAMIN S.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
CAGUIOA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ANDRES B, REYES, JR.
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to the 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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice

Footnotes
*
Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
 1
 See Notice of Appeal dated April 20, 2017; rollo, pp. 19-20.
2
 Id. at 3-18. Penned by Associate Justice Perpetua Atal-Paño with Associate
Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Oscar V. Badelles, concurring.
3
 CA rollo, pp. 29-42. Penned by Judge Godofredo B. Abdul, Jr.
4
 Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT No. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS TI-IE
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR,
AND FOR OTI-IER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
5
 Dated October 22, 2008. See records, p. 1.
6
 See id.
7
 See rollo, p. 4 and CA rollo, p. 30. See also records, p. 19.
8
 See Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer; records, pp. 7-8.
9
 See Affidavit of Arresting Officer; id. at 5-6.
10
 See rollo, p. 5 and CA rollo, pp. 30-31.
11
 See Certificate of Inventory; records, p. 17.
12
 See TSN, December 12, 2013, p. 10.
13
 See TSN June 3, 2010, pp. 29-30 and TSN December 12, 2013, p., 29.
14
 See records, p. 18.
15
 See Chemistry Report No. DT-077-2008 dated October 9, 2008; records,
p. 14. See also rollo,  p. 5.
16
 See rollo, pp. 7-9.
17
 CA rollo, pp. 29-42.
18
 Id. at 41.
19
 See id. at 36-38.
20
 See id. at 39-41.
21
 Id. at 10-11.
22
 Rollo, pp. 3-18.
23
 See id. at 17.
24
 See id. at 14-17.
25
 See People v. Dahil,  750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
26
 People v. Comboy, G.R. No. 218399, March 2, 2016, 785 SCRA 512, 521.
27
 People v. Sumi/i,  753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015).
28
 See People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
29
 People v. Sumili,  supra note 27, at 349-350.
30
 Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN
OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC
Act No. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT OF 2002,'" approved on July 15, 2014.
31
 See Section 21 (1) and (2), Article II of RA 9165.
32
 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
33
 Id. at 764; emphases and underscoring supplied.
 34
 See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
35
 Section 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"SEC. 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:
"(l) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after
seizure' and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media 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, finally, That
noncompliance of 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
and custody over said items.
x x x x"
36
 See Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165. See also People v.
Ceralde,  G.R. No. 228894, August 7, 2017.
37
 See People v. Goco, G.R. No. 219584, October 17, 2016, 806 SCRA 240,
252.
38
 631 Phil. 51 (2010).
39
 Id. at 60.
40
 630 Phil. 637 (2010).
41
 Id. at 649.
42
 TSN, June 3, 2010, p. 13.
43
 TSN, June 3, 2010, pp. 29-31.
44
 TSN, June 3, 2010, pp. 30-32.
45
 TSN, May 27, 2013, p. 9.
 46
 Supra note 25.
47
 Id. at 232; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
48
 See TSN, June 3, 2010, p. 32.
49
 TSN, June 3, 2010, pp. 32.
50
 See Lescano v. People,  G.R. No. 214490, January 13, 2016, 781 SCRA 73,
88.
51
 See People v. Macapundag,  G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017,
citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, I 038 (2012).
52
 See People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018.
53
 People v. Go, 457 Phil. 885, 925 (2003), citing People v. Aminnudin,  246
Phil. 424, 434-435 (1988).
54
 See People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018.