THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 214759. April 4, 2018.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs. DINA CALATES y

DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J : p

The lack of any justification tendered by the arresting officers for any lapses in
the documentation of the chain of custody of confiscated dangerous drugs warrants the
acquittal of the accused in a prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs on the
ground of reasonable doubt. The accused has no burden to prove her innocence. aTHCSE

The Case
We review the decision promulgated on May 29, 2014, 1 whereby the Court of
Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction for a violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) of accused Dina Calates
y dela Cruz (Dina) handed down by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bacolod City
through its judgment rendered in Criminal Case No. 03-24786 on April 21, 2009. 2
Antecedents
On April 24, 2003, the accused was charged in the RTC with violation of Section
5 of R.A. No. 9165 under the following information docketed as Criminal Case No. 03-
24786, to wit:
That on or about the 22nd of April, 2003, in the City of Bacolod,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein
accused, not being authorized by law to sell, trade, dispense, deliver, give away
to another; distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, did,
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, give away to a
police poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation, one heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a
dangerous drug weighing 0.03 gram, in exchange for a price of P100.00 in
marked money of P100.00 bill with Serial No. P915278, in violation of the
aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
The CA summarized the antecedent facts as follows:
The evidence for the prosecution is summarized as follows:
In the morning of April 20, 2003 Insp. Jonathan Lorilla received an
information from a reliable informant that alias "Dangdang" Calates is engaged
in sale of illegal drug activities. Insp. Lorilla verified if the information is true
through a police asset. During the briefing, PO1 Sonido acted as the poseur-
buyer with the asset, Insp. Lorilla as team leader and with PO2 Malate, PO2
Villeran, PO2 Perez and PO2 Belandrez as back-up security. About 10:50 or
10:55 am of April 22, 2003, the group all in civilian clothes, proceeded to 27th
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 Calamba Street, Purok Sigay, Barangay 2. PO1 Sonido and the asset went
ahead of the group. They entered the place, a woman with "semi-calbo" and
sporting blond hair, met the duo and asked if they would buy shabu. PO1
Sonido and the asset, alias "Toto," wiped their nostrils with their right finger,
meaning their answer to the question is "yes." The accused extended her left
hand to receive the marked money which PO1 Sonido gave her (accused),
while the latter took a small sachet of suspected shabu from her right pocket
and gave it to PO1 Sonido. Thereafter, PO1 Sonido immediately arrested the
accused, identified himself as police officer, PO1 Sonido informed her of the
reason of her apprehension and her rights to remain silent and counsel. When
the other member of the team saw that the accused was arrested, they rushed
towards PO1 Sonido and rendered assistance by putting the accused to a
manacle.
The marked money was recovered and the sachet of shabu was marked
"ASS" which stands for Alain S. Sonido. Thereafter, the incident was recorded
in the police blotter and the plastic sachet of shabu was brought to the PNP
Crime Laboratory.
The evidence for the defense is also summarized as follows:
Accused Dina Calates claimed that at 11:00 o'clock in the morning of
April 22, 2003, she was cooking food for lunch at her residence in 27th
Calamba Extension, Bacolod City. During that time a commotion took place
outside her house. Together with her husband Joemar and a certain Luz, the
accused went outside to see what was happening. They saw a person lying
face down and handcuffed, 15 meters away from their location. The man was
"Limuel Canlas." He was surrounded by about eight persons and among them,
were Police Officers Dennis Belandrez and Jonathan Lorilla. The accused went
back to her house and when she went outside again to pick up her son's
slippers, Insp. Lorilla suddenly handcuffed her from behind. The latter asked
Insp. Lorilla why she was arrested. The latter replied "you are also selling
shabu." The policemen went inside and searched her house without search
warrant, but they recovered nothing. The accused was brought to BAC-Up 2
(police station). 4 cAaDHT

Judgment of the RTC

As stated, the RTC convicted the accused through the decision dated April 21,
2009, disposing thusly:
WHEREFORE, finding accused DINA CALATIS y De La Cruz alias
"Dangdang" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165 (Sale, Delivery, etc. of [D]angerous Drugs) as herein charged,
judgment is hereby rendered sentencing her to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT
and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. She is also to bear the accessory penalty
prescribed by law. Cost against accused.
The one (1) sachet of shabu (Exh. "B-3" — 0.03 gram)
brought/recovered from accused, being a dangerous drug, is hereby ordered
confiscated and/or forfeited in favor of the government and to be forthwith
delivered or turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
provincial office for immediate destruction or disposition in accordance with law.
The immediate commitment of accused to the national penitentiary is
likewise hereby ordered.
SO ORDERED. 5
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 The RTC observed that the testimonies of the Prosecution's witnesses were
credible; that the Prosecution thereby established all the elements of the crime of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs defined and punished under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165; and
that Dina's denial did not overcome her positive identification as the drug pusher by the
Prosecution's witnesses.
Decision of the CA
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction upon noting that the Prosecution had
successfully proved all the elements of the crime charged; that the Prosecution had
showed that the police authorities had preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of
the dangerous drug confiscated from the accused until its presentation as evidence in
court; that the alleged inconsistency in the testimonies of the Prosecution's witnesses
became immaterial considering that Dina had personally sold the dangerous drug to
PO1 Sonido; that there had been no gap or missing link in the chain of custody of the
confiscated drug despite the fact that no inventory and pictures had been taken; and
that the lack of inventory and photographing was not fatal. 6 The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, the April 21, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 47, Bacolod City in Criminal Case No. 03-24786 convicting the accused
appellant Dina Calates y De La Cruz of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A.
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act is AFFIRMED. With costs
against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED. 7
Hence, this appeal.
Issues
For purposes of this appeal, the Office of the Solicitor General 8 and the Public
Attorney's Office 9 manifested that they were no longer filing their respective
supplemental briefs, and prayed that the briefs submitted to the CA be considered in
resolving the appeal.
In her appellant's brief, Dina argues that the Prosecution did not prove her guilt
beyond reasonable doubt; that the testimonies of the Prosecution's witnesses had
doubtful credibility; that there had been another drug operation at the same place, date
and time that led to the arrest of one Cromwell Canlas; that it was improbable for the
police operatives to have conducted the operation against Canlas and to still conduct
another operation against her just five minutes later on; that the identity of the corpus
delicti had been compromised by the lack of the inventory and the non-taking of
photographs in her presence, and in the presence of any representative from the media
and the Department of Justice, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165; that the
Prosecution did not even bother explaining why the procedures prescribed by the law
had not been complied with; and that because of the irregularities, substantial gaps
attended the chain of custody of the seized drug and rendered the identity of the drug
highly suspicious.
In response, the OSG maintains that the entrapment of Dina was with due regard
for her rights under the law; that the police operatives properly performed their duties in
the conduct of the operation against her; that there was no reason to doubt the
credibility of the testimonies of the Prosecution's witnesses; and that the non-
compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 did not
necessarily render the seizure of the drug illegal or cast doubt on the identity of the drug
because the Prosecution was able to show that there had been no gaps in the chain of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 custody starting from the initial marking until the eventual presentation of the drug in
court. HCaDIS

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is meritorious.
In prosecutions for violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the State bears the
burden not only of proving the elements of the offenses of sale of dangerous drug and
of the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drug, but also of proving the corpus
delicti, the body of the crime. Corpus delicti has been defined as the body or substance
of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime was actually
committed. As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by
someone of the particular crime charged. The corpus delicti is a compound fact made
up of two things, namely: the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the
criminal charge, and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result.
The dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law prohibiting
the illegal sale or possession of dangerous drug. Consequently, the State does not
comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the corpus delicti when the drug is
missing, or when substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody of the seized drugs as
to raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence presented in court. 10 As such, the
duty to prove the corpus delicti of the illegal sale or possession of dangerous drug is as
important as proving the elements of the crime itself.
The arrest of Dina following the seizure of the illegal substance resulted from the
buy-bust operation. Although buy-bust operations have become necessary in dealing
with the drug menace, it has also been acknowledged that buy-bust operations were
susceptible to abuse by turning them into occasions for extortion. 11 Addressing the
possibility of abuse, Congress prescribed procedural safeguards to ensure that such
abuse would be circumvented. The State and its agents are thereby mandated to
faithfully observe the safeguards in every drug-related operation and prosecution. 12
The procedural safeguards cover the seizure, custody and disposition of the
confiscated drug. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, relevantly provides:
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 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;
xxx xxx xxx
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 (a) of R.A. No. 9165 have
reiterated the statutory safeguards, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
(a) The apprehending office/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; (Emphasis supplied) AHCETa

xxx xxx xxx

The proper handling of the confiscated drug is paramount in order to ensure the
chain of custody, a process essential to preserving the integrity of the evidence of the
corpus delicti. In this connection, chain of custody refers to the duly recorded
authorized movement and custody of seized drugs, controlled chemicals or plant
sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment, from the time of seizure or
confiscation to the time of receipt in the forensic laboratory, to the safekeeping until
presentation in court as evidence and for the purpose of destruction. The
documentation of the movement and custody of the seized items should include the
identity and signature of the person or persons who held temporary custody thereof, the
date and time when such transfer or custody was made in the course of safekeeping
until presented in court as evidence, and the eventual disposition. 13 There is no
denying that the safeguards of marking, inventory and picture-taking are all vital to
establish that the substance confiscated from the accused was the very same one
delivered to and presented as evidence in court.
A review of the records reveals that the non-compliance with the procedural
safeguards prescribed by law left serious gaps in the chain of custody of the confiscated
dangerous drug.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 To start with, PO1 Sonido, who testified having marked the confiscated drug at
the place of arrest, did not claim that he did the marking in the presence of Dina. The
unilateral marking engendered doubt about the integrity of the evidence presented
during the trial, for determining if the drug he thereby marked was the same drug
confiscated from Dina became literally impossible. 14
Secondly, although P/Insp. Jonathan Lorilla attested on cross-examination that
an inventory of the confiscated drug had been conducted, his testimony had no
corroboration in the records. That he was also unsure if photographs of the confiscated
drug had been taken in the presence of Dina accented the non-observance of the
safeguards. At the very least, his declared uncertainty reflected the inexcusability of the
oversight on the part of the apprehending lawmen regarding the safeguards considering
that the arrest of Dina had been effected during the pre-planned buy-bust operation. 15
Worse, the lack of the inventory and his professed uncertainty about the taking of
photographs in the presence of Dina could only mean that no inventory and photograph
had been taken, in violation of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
The Court has consistently reminded about the necessity for the arresting lawmen
to comply with the safeguards prescribed by the law for the taking of the inventory and
photographs. The safeguards, albeit not absolutely indispensable, could be dispensed
with only upon justifiable grounds. Indeed, as pronounced in People v. Pagaduan , 16
and other rulings of the Court, the deviations from the standard procedure dismally
compromise the integrity of the evidence, and the only reason for the courts to overlook
the deviations is for the Prosecution to recognize the deviations and to explain them in
terms of their justifiable grounds, and to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the evidence seized were nonetheless substantially preserved. Any shortcoming on the
part of the Prosecution in this regard is fatal to its cause despite the saving clause
stated in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, supra, precisely because:
In the present case, the prosecution did not bother to offer any
explanation to justify the failure of the police to conduct the required physical
inventory and photograph of the seized drugs. The apprehending team failed to
show why an inventory and photograph of the seized evidence had not been
made either in the place of seizure and arrest or at the nearest police station
(as required by the Implementing Rules in case of warrantless arrests). We
emphasize that for the saving clause to apply, it is important that the
prosecution explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that
the integrity and value of the seized evidence had been preserved. In
other words, the justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as
a fact. The court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they
even exist. 17 [Bold emphasis supplied]
The records have been vainly searched for the credible justification for the
entrapment team's non-compliance with the safeguards set by law. The absence of the
justification accented the gaps in the chain of custody, and should result in the negation
of the evidence of the corpus delicti right from the outset. Clearly, the Prosecution did
not discharge its burden to prove the guilt of Dina beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty; moral certainty only is
required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. 18
On the other hand, a reasonable doubt of guilt, according to United States v. Youthsey :
19

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 x x x is a doubt growing reasonably out of evidence or the lack of it. It is
not a captious doubt; not a doubt engendered merely by sympathy for the
unfortunate position of the defendant, or a dislike to accept the responsibility of
convicting a fellow man. If, having weighed the evidence on both sides, you
reach the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, to that degree of certainty as
would lead you to act on the faith of it in the most important and crucial affairs
of your life, you may properly convict him. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is
not proof to a mathematical demonstration. It is not proof beyond the possibility
of mistake.
With the failure of the Prosecution to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
the acquittal of Dina should follow. That she might have actually committed the imputed
crime is of no consequence, for she had no burden to prove her innocence, which was
presumed from the outset.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision
promulgated on May 29, 2014 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01035;
ACQUITS accused DINA CALATES y DELA CRUZ for failure of the Prosecution to
prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and DIRECTS her IMMEDIATE RELEASE
from the Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City unless she is confined
thereat for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this decision be transmitted to the Superintendent of the
Correctional Institution for Women Bureau of Corrections, Mandaluyong City, for
immediate implementation, with the directive to report the action taken to this Court
within five days from receipt of this decision.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Leonen, Martires and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 4-18; penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, concurred in by

Associate Justice Edgardo L. De Los Santos and Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez.

2. CA rollo, pp. 14-23; penned by Presiding Judge Edgar G. Garvilles.

3. Rollo, pp. 12-13.

4. Id. at 5-7.

5. CA rollo, pp. 22-23.

6. Supra, note 1.

7. Id. at 17.

8. Rollo, pp. 27-28.

9. Id. at 32-33.

10. People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 531-532.

11. People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259, 266-267.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 12. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 180177, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 148, 158.
13. Section 1 (b), Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.

14. See People v. Zakaria, G.R. No. 181042, November 26, 2012, 686 SCRA 390, 401.
15. TSN, August 2, 2004, p. 18.
16. G.R. No. 179029, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 308.

17. Id. at 322.

18. Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.

19. 91 Fed. Rep. 864, 868.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com