Bacolod City

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 250927. November 29, 2022 ]

MARIO NISPEROS Y PADILLA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

ROSARIO, J.:

In warrantless arrests on account of buy-bust operations, the required witnesses must be

present "at or near" the place of apprehension, i.e., within the vicinity, in order to comply with the
statutory rule that the inventory should be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation.
Since they may be present "near" the place of apprehension, they need not witness the arrest itself
or the seizure or confiscation of the drugs or drug paraphernalia. They only need to be readily
available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory.

Petitioner Mario Nisperos y Padilla (petitioner) assails in his Petition for Review
on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court the Decision2 dated August 5, 2019 and the
Resolution3 dated November 7, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11472,
which affirmed the Judgment4 dated March 13, 2018 and Resolution5 dated April 23, 2018 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Branch 1 in Crim. Case No. 17489
convicting him for Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Petitioner was charged with violation of Sec. 56 of R.A. No. 91657 in an Information8 dated
September 18, 2015, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on June 30, 2015, in the City of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused MARIO NISPEROS y
PADILLA, without authority of law and without any permit to sell, transport, deliver,
and distribute dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously, sell and distribute one (1) piece heat(-)sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, commonly known as
'shabu', a dangerous drug weighing 0.7603 grams, to PO1 MICHAEL B.
TURINGAN, who is a member of the PNP, assigned at the 2nd Regional Public
Safety Batallion (2PRSB) based at Camp Adduru, Tuguegarao City, and who acted
as poseur(-)buyer; that when the accused handed to the poseur(-)buyer the heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing the dangerous drugs, the
poseur(-)buyer in turn gave to the accused the agreed purchase price of the
dangerous drugs in the amount of [₱]3,000.00, consisting of two (2) pieces
genuine [₱]500.00 peso-bill bearing Serial Nos. BU211023 and CH966702, and
two (2) pieces fake [₱]1,000.00 peso-bill both bearing Serial No. CY118978 which
were previously marked and used as buy-bust money; that this led to the immediate
arrest of the accused and the recovery of the buy-bust money from his possession,
control, and custody along Soriano Street, Pallua Norte, this city, by members of the
PNP assigned at the 2nd Regional Public Safety Batallion (2PRSB), Camp Adduru,
this city, who formed the buy-bust team, and who acted in coordination with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Regional Office No. 2, Camp Marcelo
Adduru, Tuguegarao City; that the buy-bust operation also led to the confiscation of
the dangerous drugs.
 CONTRARY TO LAW.9 (Emphasis in the original.)

When arraigned, petitioner entered a plea of NOT GUILTY to the offense charged.10

According to the evidence for the prosecution, PO1 Michael Turingan was designated
as poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation conducted pursuant to information provided by a
confidential informant that a certain "Junjun" of Pallua, Tuguegarao City was selling shabu and
looking for a possible buyer. PO1 Turingan was introduced as the buyer of the ordered shabu to
petitioner who handed to him one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white
crystalline substance. PO1 Turingan handed petitioner the buy-bust money which was later
recovered from the latter when bodily searched by PO1 Derel Sunico. An inventory was
subsequently conducted at the place of transaction in the presence of petitioner, Department of
Justice (DOJ) representative Ferdinand Gangan and Barangay Captain Desiderio Taguinod.
Gangan testified that the item was unmarked when the same was first presented to them during the
inventory. Hence, PO1 Turingan marked the sachet in front of him. The specimen was then turned
over to P02 Edmar Delayun of the crime laboratory who, in turn, transmitted the same to forensic
chemist PSI Alfredo Quintero, who conducted the qualitative examination thereon which yielded a
positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Thereafter, PSI Quintero brought the specimen
to the trial court where it was presented and identified by PO1 Turingan, formally offered, and
admitted in evidence.11

For the part of the defense, petitioner denied the allegations contained in the Affidavit of
the poseur-buyer for being fabricated and unfounded. He also testified that the chain of custody rule
was not properly observed.12

After trial on the merits, the RTC promulgated its Judgment dated March 13, 2018 finding
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and sentencing him to suffer life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00. It thereafter denied his motion for reconsideration.13

On appeal,14 the CA, in its assailed Decision15 dated August 5, 2019, found that the
prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal sale of shabu.
Further, the identity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug were properly preserved by the
apprehending team.16 It affirmed petitioner's conviction with modification as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment

dated 13 March 2018 and Resolution dated 23 April 2018 of the Regional Trial Court
of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Branch 01 in Crim. Case No. 17489, finding accused-
appellant Mario Nisperos y Padilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, and sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine in the amount of
Php500,000.00, are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that he shall not be eligible
for parole.

SO ORDERED.17

The CA also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in its assailed Resolution18 dated
November 7, 2019.

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari on the following grounds:

I. The CA failed to consider the fact that the purported witnesses to the alleged inventory were not
present at the time of the purported warrantless arrest of the herein petitioner;

II. The CA failed to consider the apparent failure of the purported members of the buy-bust team to make
the immediate initial marking of the alleged evidences;

III. The CA failed to consider the apparent failure of the prosecution to prove the proper link in the chain
of custody;

IV. The CA failed to consider the failure of the purported buy-bust team to strictly follow the supposed
chain of custody, i.e., failure to give the same alleged dangerous drug to the investigator; and
V. The CA failed to consider the legal implication of the failure of the purported buy-bust team to give a
copy of the Receipt/s of Property Seized to the herein petitioner and the purported witnesses to the
inventory.19

In summary, petitioner argues that the apprehending team failed to strictly follow the chain of
custody rule as laid down in Sec. 2120 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640,21 and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations22 (IRR).

II

Considering that the CA imposed the penalty of life imprisonment, petitioner should have filed a
notice of appeal before the CA and not a petition for review on certiorari before this
Court.23 Nonetheless, in the interest of substantial justice, We shall excuse the
procedural faux pas and treat the petition as an ordinary appeal.

We further note that the petition was filed with a docket fee payment deficiency of ₱80.00 and
lacks certified true copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA, which, under Sec.
5,24 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, are sufficient grounds for the dismissal thereof. However, We
1aшphi1

have, in the past, glossed over such procedural defects25 especially when the petition is
meritorious, as in the case at bench.

III

In the prosecution of drugs cases, the procedural safeguards under the chain of custody
procedure embodied in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, are material, as
their compliance affects the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug, controlled precursor,
essential chemical, drug instrument or paraphernalia, and/or laboratory equipment itself, and
warrants the identity and integrity of said item/s seized by the apprehending officers.26 Chain of
custody refers to 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.27 Failure to comply, however, with Sec. 21 shall not render void and invalid the seizure
of illegal drugs or items provided that (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance and (b) the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.28

The mandatory witnesses

must be present at or
near the place of
apprehension in order for
the immediate conduct of
the inventory.

In alleging failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the chain of custody rule, petitioner
asserts that the required witnesses were not present at the time of his arrest. He cites People v.
Supat29 where We ruled that "it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would
belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug."

Similarly, in People v. Tomawis,30 We held that since the phrase "immediately after seizure and
confiscation" means that the inventory and taking of photographs of the drugs were intended by the
law to be made immediately after said seizure, it follows that the witnesses required to be present
during the inventory should already be present at the time of apprehension—a requirement that can
easily be complied with considering that a buy-bust operation is a planned activity.31 We
emphasized that:

The presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of
the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless
arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the
arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the
seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation."32

We are not unmindful of the fact that the presence of the mandatory witnesses at the time of
apprehension may pose a serious risk to their lives and to the buy-bust operation. However, since
they may also be present "near" and not necessarily "at" the place of apprehension, We stress that
they are not required to witness the arrest and the seizure or confiscation of the drugs or drug
paraphernalia. They need only be readily available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory.

Here, while the purported sale transpired at 11:30 AM of June 30, 2015, the inventory took place
half an hour later. While Barangay Captain Taguinod was already present at the place of transaction,
DOJ representative Gangan arrived only at 12 noon. Without his presence, the inventory could not
be conducted for lack of one required witness. Given that the inventory was done at the place of
seizure and did not need to be performed at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the
apprehending team, the buy-bust team should have been able to conduct the same immediately
after the seizure, were it not for the tardy arrival of the DOJ representative. Certainly, his late arrival
is not a justifiable ground for the delay. The buy-bust team only had itself to blame for not ensuring
that all required witnesses were readily available for them to be able to immediately conduct the
inventory.

We find, therefore, that the buy-bust team unjustifiably deviated from the chain of custody rule
when only one of the mandatory witnesses was readily available at the place of transaction, thus
constraining the buy-bust team to conduct the inventory only half an hour after the seizure and
confiscation of the drugs.

IV

Marking is the first stage in the chain of custody33 and 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.34 While the rule on marking is not found in statute,
Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, requires that the seized item/s be
properly marked for identification.35 The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Guidelines
on the IRR of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 likewise require that the apprehending or seizing officer
mark the seized item/s immediately upon seizure and confiscation.36 Administrative rules and
regulations have the force and effect of law.37 When promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or
authority conferred upon the administrative agency by law, rules and regulations partake of the
nature of a statute.38 The Court has stated the rationale for this in the following manner:

This is so because statutes are usually couched in general terms, after

expressing the policy, purposes, objectives, remedies and sanctions intended by the
legislature. The details and the manner of carrying out the law are often times left to
the administrative agency entrusted with its enforcement. In this sense, it has been
said that rules and regulations are the product of a delegated power to create new or
additional legal provisions that have the effect of law.39

In People v. Sanchez,40 We emphasized when and in whose presence marking must be

conducted:

Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the
seized items – to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and
are eventually the ones offered in evidence — should be done (1) in the presence
of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. This step
initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted
searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits
based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or
theft. (Emphasis in the original.)

It is undisputed in this case that the poseur-buyer failed to mark the seized items immediately
upon confiscating it. In fact, they were only marked during the inventory itself.41 No justifiable
ground was proffered to excuse the belated marking. Since the first link of the chain was not even
established, We find it unnecessary to discuss the other links of the chain. Verily, there was no chain
to even speak of. With the belated marking and conduct of the inventory of the seized drugs, the
integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti are seriously compromised and the acquittal of
petitioner is warranted.

V
 In order to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, particularly our law enforcement officers, the
Court hereby adopts the following guidelines:

1. The marking of the seized dangerous drugs42 must be done:

a. Immediately upon confiscation;

b. At the place of confiscation; and

c. In the presence of the offender (unless the offender eluded the arrest);

2. The conduct of inventory and taking of photographs of the seized dangerous drugs43 must be
done:

a. Immediately after seizure and confiscation;

b. 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; and

c. Also in the presence of the insulating witnesses, as follows:

i. if the seizure occurred during the effectivity of R.A. No. 9165,

or from July 4, 200244 until August 6, 2014, the presence of
three (3) witnesses, namely, an elected public official; a
Department of Justice (DOJ) representative; and a media
representative;

ii. if the seizure occurred after the effectivity of R.A. No. 10640,
or from August 7, 201445 onward, the presence of two (2)
witnesses, namely, an elected public official; and a National
Prosecution Service representative or a media
representative.

3. In case of any deviation from the foregoing, the prosecution must positively acknowledge the
same and prove (1) justifiable ground/s for non-compliance and (2) the proper preservation
of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item/s.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 5, 2019 and Resolution
dated November 7, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11472 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Mario Nisperos y Padilla is ACQUITTED of the
crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY
RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Further, petitioner
is ORDERED TO PAY the docket fee deficiency of ₱80.00.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for
immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to
this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also
be furnished to the Secretary of Justice, the Police General46 of the Philippine National Police, the
Chairperson of the Dangerous Drugs Board, and the Director General of the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency for their information.

Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED.

Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, J. Lopez, and Singh, JJ., concur.

Gesmundo, C.J., please see concurring opinion.

Leonen, SAJ., see separate concurring opinion.

Caguioa, J., see concurring opinion.

Dimaampao,* J., on official leave.

Marquez,** J., on official business.

Kho, Jr., J., see concurring and dissenting opinion.

Footnotes

* On official leave.

** On official business.

1 Rollo, pp. 12-31.

2 Id. at 33-60. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, and concurred in by

Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig.

3 Id. at 62-63.

4 No copy was attached to the Petition, but see CA Decision, rollo, p. 33.

5 No copy was attached to the Petition, but see CA Decision, rollo, p. 33.

6 Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and

Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. -
The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any
and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as
a broker in any of such transactions.

7 AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,

REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.

8 Rollo, pp. 34-35.

9 Id.

10 Id. at 35.

11 Id. at 35-36.

12 Id. at 39-41.

13 Id. at 41.

14 See CA Decision, rollo, p. 41.

15 Rollo, pp. 33-60.

16 Id. at 54-55.

17 Id. at 56.

18 Id. at 62-63.
19 Id. at 16-17.

20 "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:

"(1) 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 person/s 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

"(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done
by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of
the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does
not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory
examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of
dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided,
however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the
said examination and certification;

"x x x."

21 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."

22 IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165,

OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002," AS
AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10640.

23 RULES OF COURT, Rule 124, Section 13(c).

24 Section 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. – The failure of the petitioner to comply with any
of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees,
deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents
which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

The Supreme Court may on its own initiative deny the petition on the ground that the
appeal is without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised
therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.

25 Dela Cruz v. People, 739 Phil. 578 (2014) [Per C.J. Sereno, First Division].
26 Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020 [Per J. A. Reyes, Jr., Second
Division].

27 People v. Moner, 827 Phil. 42, 54 (2018) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].

28 R.A.No. 10640, Section 1, reads:

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:

"(1) 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 person/s 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

29 832 Phil. 590, 593 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].

30 830 Phil. 385 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].

31 Id. at 405.

32Id. at 409.

33 People v. Siaton, 789 Phil. 87, 100 (2016) [Per J. Perez, Third Division].

34 People v. Alejandro, 671 Phil. 33, 46 (2011) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

35 Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, Section 2(b), reads:

b. The drugs or controlled chemicals or laboratory equipment shall be

properly marked for identification, weighed when possible or counted,
sealed, packed and labeled by the apprehending officer/team.

36 Guidelines on the IRR of Section 21 of REP. ACT NO. 9165, as amended, Section 1(A.1).

37 Tayug Rural Bank v. Central Bank of the Philippines, 230 Phil. 216, 223-224 (1986) [Per
J. Paras, Second Division].

38 Victorias Milling Company, Inc. v. Social Security Commission, 114 Phil. 555, 558 (1962)
[Per J. Barrera, En Banc] citing DAVIS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, p. 194.
39 Id., citing DAVIS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, p. 194.

40 590 Phil. 214 (2008), 569 SCRA 194, 220 [Per J. Brion, Second Division] cited by Dolera
v. People, 614 Phil. 655, 668 (2009); People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil. 520, 531
(2009); People v. Pagaduan, 641 Phil. 432, 448-450 (2010); People v. Martinez, 652 Phil.
347, 377 (2010); People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794, 801 (2011); People v. Somoza, 714 Phil.
368, 388 (2013); People v. Asaytuno, G.R. No. 245972, December 2, 2019, 926 SCRA 613,
633.

41 Rollo, p. 38.

42 If after the effectivity of R.A. No. 10640 on August 7, 2014, to include controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment.

43 If after the effectivity of R.A. No. 10640 on August 7, 2014, to include controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment.

44 REP. ACT NO. 9165 took effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Manila Times
and Manila Standard on June 19, 2002, i.e., on July 4, 2002.

45 REP. ACT NO. 10640 took effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Philippine
Star and the Manila Bulletin on July 23, 2014, i.e., on August 7, 2014.

46 New rank nomenclature pursuant to the IRR of REP. ACT NO. 11200.