3aepublic of tbe llbilippines

~upreme QCourt
;:fflflan ila

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 221457

Plaintiff-appellee,
Present:

LEONEN, J., Chairp rs

-versus- GESMUNDO,
CARANDANG,
ZALAMEDA, and
GAERLAN, JJ.
GILBERT SEBILLENO y
CASABAR Promulgated:
' January 13, 2020
Accused-appellant. ~- ~\
G :\\-
"\)(., ..,;.;
,
:

x------------------------------------------------------------------- ;--------x I

DECISION

LEONEN, J.: !
I
i
I
I

Just because a community outside of Mindanao is pr9clominantly

Muslim does not mean that it should be considered pndumptively
"notorious." It is this type of misguided, unfortunately uned I ca~9d, cultural
stereotype that has caused internal conflict and inhuman , 1 atment of
Filipinos of a different faith from the majority. , 1
Conviction in cases involving dangerous drugs cannot e Ltained
I
if
1
there is persistent doubt on the drug's identity. This Cou will not be a
party to using a worn out prejudice to justify noncompliance Jrit I Section 21
of Republic Act No. 9165. I
I

We acquit.

1
People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393 (2010) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
Decision 2 G.R. No. 221457 '

For this Court's resolution is an appeal challenging the Decision2 of

the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in toto the Decision3 of the Regional
Trial Court. The courts found accused-appellant Gilbert Sebilleno y Casabar
(Sebilleno) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Section 5
of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Two (2) separate Informations for violating the Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 were filed against Sebilleno and Kyle Enrique
y Damba (Enrique).

The charge for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs against Sebilleno,
read:

That on or about the 4th day of June, 2008, in the City of

Muntinlupa, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then
arid there willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, deliver and give away to
another Methylamphetamine [sic] Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug,
weighing 0.16 gram, contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet, in violation of the above-cited law. 4 (Emphasis in the original)

The charge for the illegal possess10n of dangerous drugs against

Enrique, read:

That on or about the 4 th day of June, 2008, in the City of

Muntinlupa, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and
there willfully and unlawfully have in his possession, custody and control
Methylamphetamine[sic] Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.07
gram, contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, in
violation of the above-cited law. 5

When arraigned on June 27, 2008, Sebilleno and Enrique pleaded not
guilty to the crimes charged. 6 During the February 12, 2010 pre-trial
conference, the following were admitted:

1. The identity of the accused Gilbert Sebillano [sic] y Casabar as the

same person charged in criminal case no. 08-399;

Rollo, pp. 2-20. The January 26, 2015 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas
Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the
Eighth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
CA rollo, pp. 59-74. The September 30, 2013 Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Juanita T.
Guerrero of the Regional Trial Court ofMuntinlupa, Branch 204.
4
Rollo, p. 6.
5
Id.
6
CA rollo, pp. 60.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 221457

2. That this Court has jurisdiction over the persons of the ac

over this case;
JLdI [

3. That P/Chief Insp. Maridel Cuadra Rodis is the Forensif Chemist 1

com1ected with the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Cramf, 3Jezon

City as of June 04, 2008 and that she is an expert in FarFnsic
Chemistry; I 11

4. That pursuant to the Request for L_aborator_Y Exami1:ati91l- s~e

conducted the same on the accompanymg specimens whjlch 9ons1st
of two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with mar~tings
"GSC" and "KE" containing yellowish substance suslpected as
shabu; 11

5. The existence and due execution of the Request for Iyab9r~tory

Examination and of the Physical Science Report No.D-2 8- 7 1
!'
Joint trial then ensued. 8

i
The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses, nam ly: (I) Police

l
1

Officer 1 Domingo Julaton III (POl Julaton), and (2) Police (Dffi fr 1 Elbert
Ocampo (POI Ocampo). 9 For the defense, Sebilleno and lis sln, Gilbert
1

Nano Sebilleno, Jr., took the witness stand. 10

According to the prosecution, at around 9:00 a.m. on Ju e 4, 2008,

Police Superintendent Alfredo Valdez (P/Supt. Valdez) i st~ucted POI 1

Ocampo and PO 1 Julaton to conduct a surveillance against a ce~ain "Boy

1

Trolly," who was reported to be selling illegal drugs ·n µrok 7-C,

Kalentong, Barangay Alabang, Muntinlupa City. 11 i

Police Senior Inspector Ariel Sanchez (PSI Sanch z), tlesignated

poseur-buyer PO 1 Julaton, and back-up PO 1 Ocampo, forme la team to 1

conduct a buy-bust operation. The team, together with t I e ln:fidential

informant, arrived at the target site at around 2: 15 p.m. 12
i

POI Julaton and the confidential informant proceed ,d 9a nearby

alley. The informant pointed at "Boy Trolly," later identifieli j ISebilleno,
who was then talking to Enrique in front of a store. 13

When PO 1 Julaton and the informant reached the store. thf informant 1

greeted Sebilleno 14 and introduced POl Julaton as a "balifbayan" friend

who wanted to buy shabu. 15 Sebilleno replied, "[t]amang-ta [a at may

7
Id. at 60--bl.
Id. at 61.
9
Id. The Court of Appeals Decision incorrectly wrote "Police Officer 2" for Ocai po nd Julaton see
I ,

rollo, p. 3. I

IO Id.
11
Id.
12
Id. at 4.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15
CA rollo, p. 62.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 221457

natira pa akong isang 'kasang shabu dito na tag limang daan at nakuha na
1

rin nitong si Kyle yang isa pang kasa. " 16

POl Julaton passed the marked PS00.00 bill with serial number
JX777 664 to Sebilleno, who, in exchange, gave him a small plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance. Upon receipt of the sachet, PO 1
Julaton performed the pre-arranged signal for the team by scratching his
head. 17

PO I Julaton then grabbed Sebilleno' s right hand, which held the

marked money, and arrested him. 18 POl Ocampo arrested Enrique and
recovered from him a plastic sachet that he previously purchased from
Sebilleno. 19 The officers apprised Sebilleno and Enrique of their
constitutional rights. Afterwards, PO 1 Julaton marked the sachet Sebilleno
handed to him with the latter's initials, "GSC," while the sachet seized from
Enrique was marked "KE." 20

POI Julaton kept the sachet bought from Sebilleno, while POI
Ocampo retained the sachet seized from Enrique. 21 Sebilleno and Enrique
were brought to the police station, where PO I Julaton conducted the
inventory and took photographs of the seized items. Raquel L. Dilao, a local
government employee, witnessed the inventory and taking ofphotographs. 22
PO I Julaton prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination of the
sachets. 23

At 7:15 p.m., POI Julaton submitted the seized items to the PNP
Crime Laboratory for examination. 24 Sebilleno and Enrique were also
subjected to a drug test. The laboratory examination of the sachets was
found positive for shabu. Sebilleno's drug test and Enrique's urine sample
respectively yielded positive and negative results for the presence of
dangerous drugs. 25

Testifying in his defense, Sebilleno denied the charge. He claimed

that around 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 am on June 4, 2008, he was sleeping at home
when his son woke him up and told him that there were two (2) men waiting
outside. He asked the men who they were looking for. The men, whom he
later identified as "Genova" and PO 1 Julaton, asked who he was. He replied
and identified himself as Boy Sebilleno. PO I Julaton allegedly pointed a

16
17
Id.
I
Rollo, p. 4.
1s Id.
19
Id. at 5.
20 Id.
21
· Rollo, p. 5.
22
CA rollo, p. 63.
23
Rollo, p. 5.
24 Id.
25
Id. at 6.
Decision 5 GJ No. 221457
!

gun at him and forced him to say that he was "Boy Trol y." Sebilleno
refused, and was subsequently hit in the stomach with Po1j Ju! ~ton's gun.
He asked Genova and PO 1 Julaton what crime he committ d, }?ut he was
ignored. 26 ·

Thereafter, Sebilleno was forced to ride the police v hi le and was

brought to the police station. 27 He was incarcerated and in
was being charged with illegal sale of drugs. 28 I
ed that he 011

~.

I
!
I
I

In its September 30, 2013 Decision, 29 the Regional Tr al dourt found

Sebilleno guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dJngJtous drugs,
punished under Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Dru~s Act. On
the other hand, Enrique was acquitted for insufficiency of evi1entf·
The Regional Trial Court, upon evaluation of the evid nce,i found "no
ill motive or bad faith on the part of the arresting officers jto bncoct the
allegations contained in their affidavit." 30 Thus, the 11oli<J:~ officers'
f
testimonies deserve full faith and credit. 31 The dispositive
. . read:
tion of the pol
1

I
D ec1s1on

WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding th. a cused

GILBERT SEBILLENO y CASABAR, guilty beyond reasona~le ~pubt,
he is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of 1PHP
1 1

500,000.00. The preventive imprisonment undergone by sail al cused

shall be credited in his favor. · !

I
As regards the other accused, KYLE ENRIQUE y DA B~, for
insufficiency of evidence, he is ACQUITTED of the crime ch~gedf i The
wanant of arrest issued against him is hereby lifted and set aside wlithout
prejudice to the liability of the bondsman for its failure to prddu el him
when required by the court to do so. I
I

The drug evidence are ordered transmitted to the Philip in rl rug

Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED. 32
I
I

I
In its January 26, 2015 Decision,33 the Court of A11pe 1b affirmed
Sebilleno's conviction in toto. It likewise gave credenceftol jthe police
officers' testimonies and found that they were "replete with atfrial details
I

showing the elements of the crime[.]" 34 It ruled that the presu I ption that

26
CA rollo, p.64.
27 Id.
28
Id. at 65.
29
Id. at 59-74.
30
Id. at 69-70.
31
Id. at 70.
32
Id. at 74.
33
Rollo, pp. 2-20.
34
Id. at 11.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 221457

official duty was regularly performed was not overcome. 35

The Court of Appeals held that Republic Act No. 9165 "admits of
exceptions and need not be followed with pedantic rigor." 36 Ruling that
what is essential is the preservation of the seized items' integrity , it excused
the absence of the witnesses during inventory since "tanods" were afraid to
witness in Barangay Alabang. 37 The dispositive portion of its Decision read:

WHEREFORE, the trial court's Judgment dated September 30,

2013 convicting accused-appellant of violation of Section 5, Article II, RA
No. 9165 is affirmed in toto.

SO ORDERED. 38 (Emphasis in the original)

Thus, Sebilleno filed his Notice of Appeal. 39 Giving due course to his
appeal per its March 4, 2015 Resolution, 40 the Court of Appeals elevated41
the case records to this Court.

In its January 27, 2016 Resolution, 42 this Court noted the case records
and informed the parties that they may file their supplemental briefs.

Accused-appellant43 and the Office of the Solicitor General44 filed

their respective Manifestations stating that they will no longer file a
supplemental brief. These were noted by this Court in its June 8, 2016 45 and
July 25, 2016 Resolutions. 46

In its January 27, 2016 Resolution, 47 this Court noted the records of
this case and directed the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs.

Both accused-appellant48 and plaintiff-appellee People of the

Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, 49 manifested that
they would no longer file supplemental briefs. These were noted by this
Court in its November 8, 2017 Resolution. 50
f
35
Id. at 15.
36
ld.atl8.
37
Id.atl9.
38
Id. at 20.
39
Id. at 21.
40
Id. at 24.
41
Id. at 1.
42
Id. at 26.
43
Id. at 34-38.
44
Id. at 28-33.
45
Id. at 39-40.
46
Id. at 41.
47
Id. at 26-27.
48
Id. at 34-38.
49
Id. at 28-33.
50
Unpaginated.
Decision 7 G. ·. No. 221457
I

I
In his brief before the Court of Appeals, 51 accused-ai pe 1!ant asserts
that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his convictibn !despite the
prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody. T~tj inventory
I

was done in the police station, and the copy was neither signfd by accused-
appellant nor his representative or counsel. Likewise, the~~ were no
signatures from representatives from the media and the fej~rtment of
Justice (DOJ), or any elected public official. 52 I. , ·

Accused-appellant also argues that the nonpresentation1: of Police

Chief Inspector Maridel Cuadra Rodis (PCI Rodis), the polibe b~ficer who
allegedly received the specimen for examination, casts doubt on tp.e identity
and integrity of the seized items. 53 '

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General ai ltains in its
I

4 1

Brief5 that failure to comply with the requirements of Rerubl~c Act No.
9165 is not fatal to the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerour, dl~gs as long
1

as the integrity of the seized drugs is preserved. It avers that fhe tfstimonies
of PO 1 Julaton and PO 1 Ocampo duly established the ~h in of custody,
1
hence, the seized drug from the accused was the same ~g ~~esented in
court. 55 It claims that failure to present the concerned forensi9 !chemist is
immaterial since the Chemistry Report yielded positive result, fo1
ihabu. 56

The Solicitor General justifies the police officers' 9on<!luct of the

inventory in the police station rather than at the place of arrestl !since "the
apprehending team would be putting their lives in peril condder~hg that the
area where the buy-bust operation was conducted is a notbridJis Muslim
community." 57

For this Court's resolution is the lone issue of whether or not accused-
appellant Gilbert Sebilleno y Casabar is guilty beyond reasoba~lb doubt of
violating Article II, Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerot D ugs Act.

This Court grants the appeal and acquits accused-appell nt.

The elements to sustain convictions for violation of Sfcti~n 5 of the

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, or the illegal sale of dang~rous drugs
are "(1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) t e 1esentation
1

51
CA rollo, pp. 38-58.
52
CA Rollo, p. 53.
53
Id. at 48.
54
Id. at 85-105.
55
Id. at 101.
56
Id. at 97.
57
Id. at 99.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 221457

in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence." 58 The

prosecution must prove with moral certainty the corpus delicti: 59

It is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the

corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt. Its identity and
integrity must be proven to have been safeguarded. Aside from proving
the elements of the charges, the fact that the substance illegally possessed
and sold was the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise
be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a
guilty verdict. The chain of custody carries out this purpose as it ensures
that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed. 60 (Citations omitted)

Contrary to the Solicitor General's position, the police officers'

testimonies are not enough to prove that the confiscated item from the
accused was the same drug presented in court. Mallilin v. People61
explained:

A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not

readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to
determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly
close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the
links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been
tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases - by
accident or otherwise - in which similar evidence was seized or in which
similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in
authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to
cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a
more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with
sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original
item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or
tampered with. 62 (Emphasis supplied)

The nature of narcotic substances necessarily entails heightened

scrutiny. Further, "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect
to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small." 63 Here, allegedly seized
from the accused-appellant was 0.16 gram of suspected shabu. 64 Thus, we
employ the heightened scrutiny which Mallillin espoused in evaluating
evidence. f
58
People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487, 500 [Per J. Leonen, Third
Division] citing People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second
Division]; People v. Darisan, 597 Phil. 479, 485 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First Division]; and People v.
Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
59
People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356,367 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing People v. Ismael,
806 Phil. 21 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
60
Id. at 367-368 citing Lopez v. People, 725 Phil. 499, 507 (2014) [Per J. Perez, Second Division];
People v. Lagahit, 746 Phil. 896, 908 (2014) [Per J. Perez, First Division]; and People v. Ismael, 806
Phil. 21 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division).
61
576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
62
Id. at 588-589.
63
Id. at 588.
64
Rollo, p. 6.
Decision 9 G.' No. 221457

II
I

Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs A, t, ~ originally

I' I
worded, provides the requirements for the custody and dis~osition of I

confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphtjllalia:

(I) The apprehending team having initial custody and control Jth{bgs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically! invfhtory
and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or tHe per~on/s
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, br hts/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the medih af d
the
Department ofJustice (DOJ), and any elected public officia~ who shall
1

::e;:itred to sign the copies of the inventory and be giv[en al copy

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of I an• •rous

I I
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled prec"4rsors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia khd/or
.l I!
laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to me PiDEA
Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examirlatidrt;

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination resjts,Jlhich

shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examin~r, s all be
issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the sJbject
item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous diugs, b1ant1

I I I •
sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and ess~ntial
chemicals does not allow the completion of testing withitl thb Itime
frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be pr9visiblinally
issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still ~o be
examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, T~at a Ifinal
certification shall be issued on the completed forensic labdratory
examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) h, rs[.] 1

(Emphasis supplied)

Lescano v. People65 summarized the requisites under

as amended by Republic Act No. 10640:

As regards the items seized and subjected to markin: , SE tion

1
21(1) of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, reRuires
the performance of two (2) actions: physical inventory and photJgraphing.
Section 21(1) is specific as to when and where these actions muJt be cl.one.
As to when, it must be "immediately after seizure and confiscatiJn." As to
where, it depends on whether the seizure was supported byj a s!arch
warrant. If a search warrant was served, the physical inventor~[ and
photographing must be done at the exact same place that the ~yarch
warrant is served. In case of warrantless seizures, these actio~s m~st be
done "at the nearest police .station or at the nearest offile 1· the 1

apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable.

Moreover, Section 21(1) requires at least three (3) per ons o be

65
778 Phil. 460 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
Decision 10 G.R. No. 221457 '

are: first, the accused or the person/s from whom the items were seized;
second, an elected public official; and third, a representative of the
National Prosecution Service. There are, however, alternatives to the first
and the third. As to the first (i.e., the accused or the person/s from whom
items were seized), there are two (2) alternatives: first, his or her
representative; and second, his or her counsel. As to the representative of
the National Prosecution Service, a representative of the media may be
present in his or her place. 66

Noncompliance with Section 21 casts doubt on the integrity of the

corpus delicti, and essentially, on accused's guilt. 67 Considering that the
constitutional presumption of innocence mandates proof beyond reasonable
doubt, 68 "conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the
identity of the drug." 69 Acquittal thus, ensues.

Here, the prosecution failed to show the apprehending officers' strict

compliance with Section 21.

First, Racquel L. Dilao, a local government employee, witnessed the

inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items. 70 Second, none of
the three (3) people required by Section 21(1), as originally worded, 71 was
present.

The prosecution has "the positive duty to establish that earnest efforts
were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under Section
21 (1) of [Republic Act No.] 9165, or that there was a justifiable ground for
failing to do so." 72 People v. Mendoza 73 stressed the third-party witnesses'
insulating presence in securing the custody of the seized items:

Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or

the Department of Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure
and marking of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or
contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted
under the regime of RA No. 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 sachets of shabu that were evidence herein
of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the
incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such
witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody. 74

66
Id. at 475.
67
People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
68
Macayan v. People, 756 Phil. 202,213 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division], citing CONST. art. III,
sec. l; CONST. art. III, sec.14 (2); People v. Solayao, 330 Phil. 811,819 (1996) [Per J. Romero, Second
Division]; and Boac v. People, 591 Phil. 508 (2008) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
69
People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393 (2010) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
7
° CA Rollo, p. 63.
71
The buy-bust operation was conducted in 2008, prior to Republic Act No. 10640's amendment. Thus,
what applies is Republic Act No. 9165 as originally worded.
72
People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1053 (2012) [Per J. Sereno, Second Division].
73
736 Phil. 749 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
74 Id. at 764.
 Decision 11 G.1 No. 221457

This Court has previously held that attendance of third- a y witnesses

must be secured as early as the actual seizure of the items, a~~ not only
during inventory and taking of photographs. 75 l I

PO 1 Julaton attempted to justify the presence of a lo ,al !overnment

employee, instead of an elected public official. The "baranka~ ltanods" in
Barangay Alabang allegedly refused to witness the inventory ou~ of fear. 76
However, P02 Julaton did not explain why the apprehending officers could
not have asked other elected public officials to witness the in I tntory and
photographing. j_

Worse, the prosecution failed to prove that eamesl e forts were

employed in securing the presence of the other two (2) witnessfb from the
media and the Department of Justice. No justification wJs g~offered to
1

excuse the law enforcers' deviation from the law's simple req ireijents.

Second, Section 21 directs the conduct of inventory an11 taking of

1

photographs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." eo e v. Que77 1

explained that these must be done at the place of arrest:

What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of nve ory,
marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that lthe i~ems
allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they rµake
their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seiztire, tb an
investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to cotlrts :here
they are introduced as evidence. . .
j I

Section 21 (1 )'s requirements are designed to make the fir t[ and

second links foolproof. Conducting the inventory and phot(i)grdiJJilhing
immediately after seizure, exactly where the seizure was don~, o1 at a
location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates,! rodm for
adulteration or the planting of evidence[ ]78 (Emphasis suppliel

The Implementing Rules allow the conduct of invento I of the seized

f
items and taking of photographs "at the nearest police sdtioy or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever isjpra ,ticable." 79
Deviations from the law may be excused, but the prosecution u tj plead and 1

prove a justifiable ground. 80

The Solicitor General averred that inventory was coru red in the

75
People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487, 520-521 [' er J Leonen, Third
Division]. I
76
Rollo, p. 19.
77
People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487 [Per J. Leonen, Thi d Division].
78
Id. at. 518-519. I
79
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 2l(a).
80
People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 98 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
 -- - ---------- · - - - - -

Decision 12 G.R. No. 221457

police station, because "the apprehending team would be putting their lives
in peril considering that the area where the buy-bust operation was
conducted is a notorious Muslim community." 81

The Office of the Solicitor General, which represents no less than the
Government of the Philippines in a number of legal matters, 82 ought to be
circumspect in its language. This averment from the Solicitor General
exhibits biased, discriminatory, and bigoted views; unbecoming of a public'
official mandated to act with justice and sincerity, and who swore to respect
the rights of persons. 83 This is the kind of language that diminishes the
public's trust in our state agents. These are the words that when left
unguarded, permeate in the public's consciousness, encourage further
divide and prejudices against the religious minority, and send this country
backward.

We cannot condone this.

As stressed, the prosecution must not only plead, but also prove an
excusable ground. This Court fails to see how a Muslim community can be
threatening or dangerous, that would put our law enforcers' lives to peril.
The Solicitor General's colorful choice of word, "notorious, " does not
inspire confidence either.

Third, the prosecution failed to present as witness PCI Rodis, the

police officer who received the specimen for laboratory examination. 84

This Court acquitted the accused-appellant in People v. Sagana 85 when

it found that the persons who handled the seized items were not presented as
witnesses, without ample explanation:

The prosecution has the "burden of establishing the identity of the

seized items." Considering the sequence of the people who have dealt
with the confiscated articles, the prosecution failed to justify why three (3)
other significant persons were not presented as witnesses. These persons
were the desk officer who supposedly recorded the incident in the police
blotter, the investigator who prepared the request for examination, and the
police officer who received the articles in the laboratory. "In effect, there
is no reasonable guaranty as to the integrity of the exhibits inasmuch as it
failed to rule out the possibility of substitution of the exhibits, which
cannot but inure to its own detriment." 86 (Emphasis supplied, citations
omitted)

81
CA rollo, p. 99.
82
Adm. Order No. 130 (1994).
83
Republic Act No. 6713 (1989), sec. 4 (c).
84
CA rollo, p. 48.
85
815 Phil. 356(2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
86
Id. at 376.
Decision 13

POI Julaton's testimony that the confiscated items wer t med over to
PCI Rodis is insufficient. Jurisprudence requires that the poficel ifficer who
received the articles in the laboratory testify in court. 87 eit ~r does the
Chemistry Report suffice. !

I
I
III l
I

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals' rel'Lce on the
presumption of regularity in the performance of the law eni or1~rs' official
duty: is misplaced. We clarified in People v. Kamad8 8 that: I

Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police co ·nld in

handling the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in tlh.e chlin of
its custody, a presumption of regularity in the performancel of ~1uties
cannot be made in this case. A presumption of regularity 1· the !
performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing . le of
. . th e per1ormance
1aw or statute autl1onzmg -C'.
of an act or duty or 11>resc:~1
I I i.b.mg
a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption ap)r,lie~ 'when
nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviatef fro in the
standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the ,,Jfi~dihl act
is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In l"ght df the
flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were obviously on ~hen
i['
they relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of 1cial
duty.
I

We rule, too, that the discrepancy in the prosecution eviden e on

1

the identity of the seized and examined shabu and that formallyj o:ff!ited in
court cannot but lead to serious doubts regarding the origins o~ thel ~habu
presented in court. This discrepancy and the gap in the chain of cu~tody
immediately affect proof of the corpus delicti without whichI t ea, bused
1

must be acquitted. 89 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted) I

There were persistent doubts in the origins of the d gs kupposedly

seized from accused-appellant. The absence of the reqiliire witnesses I

during seizure, marking, inventory, and taking of photograJhs,l lalong with

the police officers' failure to conduct these at the place of cirrest, and their
nonpresentation of material witnesses who handled the iter,s; ~nd, lastly,
their utter failure to justify these blatant lapses, reveal ~ seriously
compromised chain of custody. Taken together, these instarices taise doubt
on the integrity of the confiscated items and, ultimately, on Jhe bmmission
of the crime.

This Court is, thus, constrained to acquit accused-appellan . However,

we echo this Court's declarations in People v. Holgado: 90

87 Id.
88
624 Phil. 289 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
89
Id. at 311.
90
741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
 L __ l __

Decision 14 G.R. No. 221457

It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with

prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug
users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the
proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry
who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a
bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an
exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and
prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is
to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these
nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial
resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of
shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in
the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from
their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We
stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the
leadership of these cartels. 91

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' January 26, 2015 Decision in

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06441 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-
appellant Gilbert Sebilleno y Casabar is ACQUITTED for the prosecution's
failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered
immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for some
other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau

of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is directed to report the action he has taken to this Court within
five (5) days from receipt of this Decision. Copies shall also be furnished to
the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director
General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.

The Regional Trial Court is directed to tum over the seized sachets of
methamphetamine hydrochloride to the Dangerous Drugs Board for
destruction in accordance with law.

Let entry of final judgement be immediately issued.

SO ORDERED.
\

1 Associate Justice

91
Id. at 100.
' . Decision 15 ,GJ No. 221457
WE CONCUR:

A L , + G. GESMUNDO
w.;;iate
Justice

SAMUEL H. GAERLAN
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had I ee reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the op ·rion of the
1

Court's Division.

'
II I

MAR C M.V.F. LEl(])NEN

/ A ssociate
. Jurtic . I
I

Chairpers I n

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitutip and the

Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was ssigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
1
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusiors iln the above
1

I I
II

-7
ust1ce
1 LTA