January 29, 2020

G.R. No. 220142

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RONALD SUATING Y SAYON

ALIAS "BOK", ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

Only the police testified for the prosecution. The actual poseur - buyer was not presented, and the
police officers were 10 meters away. The alleged contraband was laid out on the table when the
barangay official came. There was no testimony on the chain of custody from the attesting officers to
the persons who tested the alleged contraband.

In contrast, the accused presented five (5) witnesses from the community to prove that the alleged
contraband was not taken from the accused, and that no buy-bust operation occurred. The accused
testified that when he was searched, they only found two pesos and fifty centavos (P2.50) on his
person.

Yet, the trial court and the Court of Appeals were willing to send this accused to a life in prison and
to impose a fine of P500,000.00 for allegedly selling a stick of marijuana.

We reverse. Efforts of law enforcers to go after the real drug syndicates are undermined by these
obviously fictitious arrests. All it accomplishes is alienate our people, enable corrupt law enforcers,
and undermine the confidence of our people—especially those who are impoverished and
underprivileged—on our court's ability to do justice.

Courts must exercise "heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond
reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs for these can be readily
planted and tampered."1

This Court resolves an Appeal2 filed by Ronald Suating y Sayon, alias "Bok" (Suating), from the
Decision3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CEB HC No. 01702 which affirmed the Regional Trial
Court4 ruling that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs.5

Two separate (2) Informations were filed against Suating for violations of Sections 56 and 117 of
Republic Act No. 9165,8 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The
charging portions of the Informations provided:

Criminal Case No. 8451-69

"

That on November 9, 2011 in Silay City, Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell one large stick of marijuana cigarette marked as BOK-1, a prohibited drug to an
asset of the Silay City PNP posing as a poseur - buyer in exchange for three 3 twenty peso bills with
serial numbers RS65451 (sic), RT180921, and RT395576 all marked with the underline in the last
digit of each serial numbers. CONTRARY TO LAW .

"

Criminal Case No. 8452-69

"

That on November 9, 2011 in Silay City, Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in possession and control one (1) large rolled stick of Marijuana cigarette with a
total weight of 0.14 grams marked as BOK-2, a prohibited drug without any license or permit to
possess the same. CONTRARY TO LAW. 9

"

Upon arraignment, Suating pleaded not guilty to the charges.10 Joint trial on the merits
commenced.11

The testimonies of the witnesses12 for the prosecution corroborated the following account of events:

Acting on a tip from concerned constituents and barangay officials, the Philippine National Police of
Silay City (PNP Silay) effected a surveillance to verify whether or not Suating was selling marijuana
within the area of Barangay Mambulac Elementary School.13 After several test buys, the Information
against Suating was confirmed.14

In coordination with the Regional Office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Iloilo
City, the police officers planned a buy-bust operation. They prepared three (3) P20.00 bills with
serial numbers RS654551, RT180921, and RT395576. As marking, they underlined the last digit of
each bill's serial number. They subscribed to the marked money before City Prosecutor Ma. Lisa
Lorraine Atotubo, and the use of the same was entered in their blotter book under entry number
01723.15

Before the buy-bust operation, a short briefing commenced. PO2 Reynaldo Bernil (PO2 Bernil)
handed the marked money to a confidential asset who was the designated poseur - buyer.16

On the afternoon of November 9, 2011,17 the operation ensued.

The poseur - buyer went to the premises of Barangay Mambulac Elementary School, ahead of the
police officers.18 Shortly thereafter, he called PO2 Bernil when Suating was already "within his
sight."19 The rest of the police officers followed, positioning themselves approximately 10 meters
away from the area of operation and about 50 meters away from the school.20

PO2 Bernil was the point person of the entrapment. He saw the poseur - buyer approach Suating
and engage in a short conversation with him. He also witnessed when Suating left the area of
operation, only to return to the poseur - buyer after a few minutes. While Suating and the
poseur - buyer were talking, the latter took out the marked money from his pocket and gave it to
Suating. In exchange, Suating handed unknown articles suspected to be marijuana.21
After the sale, the poseur - buyer left the area. He proceeded to where PO2 Bernil was in order to
surrender the large stick of suspected marijuana cigarette bought from Suating. PO2 Bernil then
handed the item to PO2 Ian Libo-on (PO2 Libo-on), who marked it with "BOK-1."22

PO2 Bernil and the other police officers immediately moved towards Suating and restrained his
hands. After introducing themselves as persons of authority, they apprehended Suating and
informed him of his constitutional rights. Suating's father, along with the other unidentified
individuals, attempted to stop the arrest but to no avail.23

Thereafter, the police officers brought Suating to a police station in Silay City, and proceeded to
conduct a body search on him in the presence of Kagawad Jose Junsay of Barangay Mambulac.
Found in his possession were the marked money used during the operation, together with another
large rolled cigarette stick of suspected marijuana, which was marked "BOK-2" by PO2 Libo-on.24

In the presence of an elected official, the police officers inventoried and photographed the
confiscated items. After the request letter was prepared, the items were brought to the PNP Crime
Laboratory25 of the Negros Occidental Police Provincial Office in Bacolod City.26 Under Chemistry
Report No. D-217-2011, Forensic Officer Paul Jerome Puentespina (Forensic Officer Puentespina)
examined the seized illicit drugs, which yielded positive for marijuana.27

On the other hand, Suating denied all charges against him and claimed that he was merely framed
by the police.28

Suating detailed in his testimony, which the witnesses corroborated,29 that he was allegedly buying
fish in the flea market of Barangay Mambulac30 on the day of the buy-bust operation, when a police
officer suddenly apprehended him. The police officer brought him to a room in Silay City Police
Station where they asked him certain questions. When Barangay Kagawad Junsay arrived, Suating
was frisked. However, they were only able to recover two pesos and fifty centavos (P2.50) from his
possession. Thereafter, the police officers took his photo, made him sign a document, and later
brought him to the Negros Occidental Police Provincial Office where he was made to urinate in a
disposable cup.31

The Regional Trial Court convicted Suating of the charges.32

The Regional Trial Court did not find merit in Suating's contention that the buy-bust operation did not
happen,33 specifying how Suating was apprehended through a well-planned entrapment, which was
conducted after monitoring and validation by the police officers.34

The Regional Trial Court found the testimonies of police officers Bernil and Libo-on to be "detailed
and straightforward."35 Hinging on the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official
duties, and in the absence of any convincing proof that they have ill intent to falsely testify against
Suating, the trial court upheld the testimonies of the arresting officers.36 The dispositive portion of
the trial court Decision read:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED:

In Criminal Case No. 8451-69, this Court finds accused, Ronald Suating y Sayon a.k.a. "Bok",
GUILTY beyond any reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5 , Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002", as his guilt was proven by
the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, this Court sentences accused , Ronald Suating y Sayon a.k.a "Bok ", to suffer the
penalty of Life Imprisonment, the same to be served by him at the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa
City, Province of Rizal.

Accused named is, further, ordered by this Court to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand
(P500,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency.

In Criminal Case No. 8452-69 , this Court finds accused, Ronald Suating y Sayon a.k.a. "Bok",
GUILTY beyond any reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 ", as his guilt was proven by
the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.

Accordingly , and in application of the pertinent provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law , this
Court sentences accused, Ronald Suating y Sayon a.k.a. "Bok", to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for a period of sic from TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO FOURTEEN (14)
YEARS , the same to be served by him at the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, Province of
Rizal.

Accused named is, further, ordered by this Court to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand
(P300,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency.

The two (2) rolled sticks of marijuana cigarettes (Exhibits "H-1" and "H-2", prosecution) are ordered
remitted to the office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) at Negros Occidental
Provincial Police Office (NOPPO), Camp Alfredo Montelibano, Sr., Bacolod City, for proper
disposition.

In the service of the sentences imposed on him by this Court, accused named shall be given full
credit for the entire period of his detention pending trial.

NO COSTS.

SO ORDERED.

On appeal,38 Suating assailed his conviction, asserting that the trial court was mistaken in relying on
the weakness of his defense. He insisted that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, as the identity of the confiscated illicit drugs were not sufficiently proven due to
non-conformity with the provisions of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.39

The Court of Appeals ruled against Suating.40

It held that the illegal sale transaction was effectively completed when Suating gave the hand rolled
marijuana cigarette to the poseur - buyer in exchange for the marked money. As to the elements of
illegal possession of dangerous drugs, Suating failed to persuade that he had legal authority to
possess the marijuana cigarette found when he was frisked.41 Moreover, his previous act of selling
marijuana to the poseur buyer showed his intention to "freely and consciously "42 possess illicit
drugs.43

Relative to the alleged non-conformity with the chain of custody, the Court of Appeals underscored
that the prosecution was able to prove that there was "no gap or confusion in the confiscation,
handling, custody and examination"44 of the confiscated illicit drugs. The dispositive portion of its
Decision read:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated July 29, 2013 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 69 of Silay City, in Criminal Case No. 8451-69 to 8452-69, is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.45 (Emphasis in the original)

Hence, this appeal.46

On July 27, 2015, the Court of Appeals forwarded the records of this case to this Court47 pursuant
to its June 10, 2015 Resolution which gave due course to Suating's Notice of Appeal.48

In its November 11, 2015 Resolution,49 this Court noted the records forwarded by the Court of
Appeals. In the same Resolution, the parties were required to file their Supplemental Briefs within 30
days from notice, should they desire to do so. Both parties manifested that they no longer intend to
file Supplemental Briefs.50

For this Court's resolution is whether or not the guilt of Suating was proven beyond reasonable
doubt. Subsumed in the resolution of this issue is whether or not the police officers complied with the
chain of custody as provided for under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and its Implementing
Rules.

Suating maintains his innocence.51

While he concedes that the defense of frame-up and denial is weak, he asserts that this cannot be
utilized to further the prosecution's cause, as the latter's evidence "must stand or fall on its own
weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of his defense."52

Contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals,53 Suating claims that the prosecution failed to
establish the illegal sale of illicit drugs. Arguing that the police officers were 10 meters away from the
area of operation, he insists that it would be impossible for them to observe or even hear what
transpired during the alleged transaction.54 He then questions why the prosecution failed to present
the poseur - buyer as witness when only the latter can best ascertain the necessary details
surrounding the sale.55

As to the chain of custody in handling the seized illicit drugs, Suating underscores the following
irregularities on the part of the police officers:56

First, he points out that the marking of the large stick of marijuana cigarette was done neither in his
presence nor in the presence of third-party witnesses.57 Moreover, Suating emphasizes that during
the inventory, the confiscated illicit drugs were already laid down on the table when the barangay
officials came.58 Hence, they have no personal knowledge on how the items were taken from his
possession.59

Second, he also stresses that since the body search was belatedly undertaken, there is a possibility
that the second item might have been merely planted by the police.60

Lastly, Suating also stresses his misgivings on whether or not the articles allegedly seized from him
were the same ones tested by the forensic chemist in the first place, and eventually, the ones
presented in court. He posits that the records failed to provide details on who handled the
confiscated illicit drugs after examination and up to the moment they were offered as evidence in
court.61
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General62 insists that the statements of PO2 Bernil,
who had the opportunity to observe the sale from a distance, duly substantiated the identities of both
the buyer and seller.63 That even if the actual dialogue cannot be heard, the actions of both the
accused and the poseur - buyer supports the conclusion that the sale of illicit drugs did happen.64

The Office of the Solicitor General also underscores that the testimony of the poseur - buyer is
neither necessary for conviction nor crucial to a plausible prosecution of the charges. With the
statements made by the police officers, the testimony of the poseur - buyer is only corroborative.65

As to the alleged broken chain of custody, the Office of the Solicitor General claims that PO2 Bernil
and PO2 Libo-on were able to ascertain the identities of the marked seized illicit drugs. Further, non-
conformity with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not immediately render the apprehension
of an accused as illegal, or the articles seized inadmissible.66

Finally, it argues that the defense of frame-up necessarily involves the assessment of the credibility
and statements of witnesses. It underscores that, as an often repeated rule that higher courts mostly
accede to the evaluation of trial courts, which have the opportunity to hear and observe the
actuations of witnesses during the proceedings.67

This Court rules in favor of Suating.

Every criminal proceeding begins with the constitutionally safeguarded presumption that the accused
is innocent, which can only be overturn by proof beyond reasonable doubt.68 The prosecution has
the burden of proof. It must not depend on the weakness of the defense; rather, it must depend on
the strength of its own cause.69

Proof beyond reasonable doubt, "or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that
would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment," is crucial in overthrowing
the presumption of innocence.70 In the event that the prosecution falls short of meeting the standard
of evidence called for, it would be needless for the defense to offer evidence on its behalf.71 The
presumption of innocence stands, and the accused is accordingly acquitted of the charge.72

In order to guarantee a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the
following:

(1) The identity of the buyer and the seller , the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.73

In sum, the occurrence of the sale should be established.

Moreover, the object of the deal should also be offered as evidence and must similarly be proven as
the same one confiscated from the accused.74

As to the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements should be ascertained:

1 The accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; 2 such possession was not authorized by
law; and 3 the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous
drugs.75
In both cases, the confiscated illicit drugs from the accused comprises the corpus delicti of the
charges,76 "i.e., the body or substance of the crime which establishes that a crime has actually been
committed."77 It is of paramount importance to maintain the integrity and the identity of the corpus
delicti. Thus, the chain of custody rule warrants that "unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of
the evidence are removed."78

The chain of custody is "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs. . . of
each stage, from the time of seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction."79 As a means of verifying evidence, it
demands "that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by [Proof sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be."80 Accordingly, the prosecution must be
able to monitor each of the following links in the chain of custody over the illicit drugs:

First , the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;

Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer;

Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and

Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the
court.81 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

In this case, a prearranged police entrapment led to Suating's apprehension. However, despite a
carefully planned and coordinated buy-bust operation, there were still irregularities committed in the
course of the entrapment, which caused apparent lapses to the chain of custody rule.82

For this reason, the identity of the corpus delicti was not duly established beyond reasonable doubt.
We are no longer certain whether or not the miniscule quantities of 0.1583 and 0.14 grams84 of
marijuana, presented as evidence against Suating in court, were the very same ones allegedly
confiscated from him.

II

The apprehension of Suating and the consequent seizure of illegal drugs in his possession were due
to a buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers, after prior surveillance and
investigation.85 Although this type of operation has been recognized to be effective in eliminating
unlawful dealings that are covertly undertaken, it has a notable "downside that has not escaped the
attention of the framers of the law."86 Buy-bust operations are vulnerable "to police abuse, the most
notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion."87

Accordingly, police officers are mandated to strictly observe the procedure for confiscation and
custody of prohibited drugs under Republic Act No. 9165.88 The initial procedural
safeguard89 under Article II, Section 2190 thereof provides:

-1

The apprehending 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;91 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In effecting the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165, the Implementing Rules and
Regulations92 read:

a)

The apprehending officer/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,
furtlter, 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;93 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Notwithstanding the mandatory directive of the law as construed from its use of the word
"shall,"94 the police officers miserably failed to comply with the specific procedures in handling the
seized marijuana cigarettes allegedly taken from accused-appellant.

The initial link in the chain of custody is the marking of the confiscated illicit drugs. Marking
precludes any contamination, switching or planting of evidence. Through it, the evidence is
separated from the corpus of other similar and correlated evidence, starting from confiscation until its
disposal at the close of criminal proceedings.95 To be at par with the rule on the chain of custody,
the marking of the confiscated articles should be undertaken: (1) in the presence of the accused;
and (2) immediately upon seizure.96 This effectively guarantees that the articles seized "are the
same items that entered the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence. "97

In this case, the prosecution offered no reason as to why the marking of the seized marijuana
labelled "BOK-1" was not immediately done after confiscation, but rather only after a considerable
lapse of time, thereto when the poseur buyer was able to leave the area of operation:, away from the
sight of the accused. Moreover, they particularly failed to explain why the police officers could not
have promptly marked the item in the presence of Suating, if only to remove any uncertainty that the
marijuana cigarette marked by PO2 Libo-on, and later subjected to laboratory testing, was the very
same one allegedly sold by the accused to the poseur - buyer.98 Here, an apparent break in the
chain of custody already existed before the item was even marked.

Additionally, the prosecution's failure to present the poseur - buyer is prejudicial to their cause.99 To
emphasize, the negotiations during the assailed transaction was intimately between the poseur
buyer and Suating. PO2 Bernil, whose exact location from the area of operation was not specifically
stated, was merely observing from a distance.100 Considering that the poseur buyer was the one
who has personal knowledge of the illegal sale transaction since he was the one who conducted the
same, his testimony is not merely corroborative to that of the police officers.101 The quantity of
dangerous drugs here is "so small that the reason for not presenting the poseur- buyer does not
square with such a miniscule amount."102
Moreover, this Court observed that while there was a narration that the confiscated items were
inventoried and photographed in the police station,103 it is not, however, clear104 whether such
procedures were done in the presence of the required third-party witnesses. To underscore, the
prosecution's narrative in the Court of Appeals' Decision states that both the inventory and
photograph of the confiscated articles were undertaken before "an elected public
official."105 However, in the Appellee's Brief, the mandatory procedures were allegedly made "in the
presence of Hon. Ireneo Celis and the Barangay Kagawad."106

The inconsistencies in the prosecution's narration of events points out that the required attendance
of representatives (from both the media and the Department of Justice) during the inventory and
photographing was not faithfully complied with, despite having more than enough time to secure
their presence during preparation of the allegedly well-planned entrapment. Although their absence
does not per se make the seized articles inadmissible as evidence, the prosecution must prove that
it has acceptable reason for such failure, or a showing that it exerted "genuine and sufficient effort"
to secure their presence,107 which, in this case, the prosecution failed to do.

The attendance of third-party witnesses is called for in order "to ensure that the chain of custody rule
is observed and thus, it removes any suspicion of tampering, switching, planting, or contamination of
evidence which could considerably affect a case. "108 Even assuming that the inventory and
photographing of the seized articles were made in the presence of two (2) elected public officials-
still, the superfluity cannot justify the absence of the other required personalities therein.

With the glaring lapses committed by the police officers, which inevitably tainted the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized illicit drugs, we cannot help but subscribe to Suating 's contention that
there is a possibility that the marijuana stick allegedly confiscated from his possession was merely
planted, considering that the body search was belatedly done at the police station and only after
more than an hour from his apprehension.109

Finally, the prosecution's narration of facts ended when the confiscated articles were examined by
Forensic Officer Puentespina, whose findings under Chemistry Report No. D-217-2011 provided that
the items yielded positive for marijuana.110 This finding, however, leaves the following questions
unresolved: (1) did the confiscated drugs remain under Forensic Officer Puentespina's custody; and
(2) were they conveyed to some other place until their presentation in court as evidence? The lack of
details on the post-chemical examination custody111 of the confiscated illicit drugs creates another
substantial gap in the chain of custody rule, particularly on the must accounted "turnover and
submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court."112

Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 "is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed
aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of
illegal drug suspects."113 Moreover, it "spells out matters that are imperative."114 Even performing
actions, which seemingly near compliance but do not really conform to its requisites, is not
enough.115 More so, "when the prosecution claims that the seizure of drugs is the result of carefully
planned operations, as is the case here."116

In addition, the prosecution cannot merely assert the saving clause under the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165. Non-confonnity with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165
is certainly not fatal to the cause of the prosecution, as long as the lapses committed by police
officers in the handling of evidence were "recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable
grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to
have also been preserved."117
However, these requirements were not present in this case, since the prosecution, to begin with,
failed to acknowledge that there were lapses committed by police officers while dealing with the
custody of the seized illicit drugs. These irregularities created major gaps in the chain of custody
rule, which, if remained unjustified, is prejudicial to the claim of the prosecution.118

To emphasize, only 0.15 119 and 0.14 grams120 of marijuana were confiscated from accused-
appellant. For this reason, courts must exercise "heightened scrutiny, consistent with the
requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of
drugs, for these can be readily planted and tampered. " 121

III

Contrary to the rulings of both the trial122 and appellate court,123 the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official duties cannot stand in favor of the police officers on account of the glaring
lapses committed in handling the seized illicit drugs. To underscore, this presumption is neither
definite nor conclusive. By itself, it cannot overturn the constitutional safeguarded presumption of
innocence.124 When the assailed official act "is irregular on its face, as in this case, an adverse
presumption arises as a matter of course. "125

From the standpoint of the accused, we concede that his defense126 of denial and frame-up is
weak.127 In our jurisdiction, these defenses, "like alibis, have been viewed with disfavor
for these can easily be concocted and are common defense ploy s in most prosecutions for violation
of the Dangerous Drugs Act."128 However, this cannot strengthen or aid the case of the
prosecution. "If the prosecution cannot establish, in the first place, the appellant's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, the need for the defense to adduce evidence in its behalf in fact never arises.
"129 Additionally, "however weak the defense evidence might be, the prosecution's whole case still
falls. " 130

Considering that non-conformity with Section 21 equates to "failure in establishing the identity of

corpus delicti, which is an essential element"131 of the charges, Suating's acquittal is therefore in
order.

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' December 22, 2014 Decision in CA-GR CEB HC No. 01702 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Ronald Suating y Sayon is hereby ACQUITTED
for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered to be
immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any 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. For their information, copies
shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director
General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the two (2) sticks of marijuana cigarettes subject of
this case to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.

Gesmundo, Carandang, Zalameda and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that on January 29, 2020 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the
Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on July
2, 2020 at 11:05 a.m.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III

Division Clerk of Court

ORDER OF RELEASE

TO: The Director

BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS
1770 Muntinlupa City

Thru: The Superintendent

New Bilibid Prison

BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS
1770 Muntinlupa City

GREETINGS:

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court on January 29, 2020 promulgated a Decision in the above-entitled
case, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' December 22, 2014 Decision in CA-G.R. CEB HC No. 01702
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Ronald Suating y Sayon is hereby ACQUITTED
for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered to be
immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any 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. For their information, copies
shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director of
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

The Regional Trial Court is directed to tum over the two (2) sticks of marijuana cigarettes subject of
this case to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED."

NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release RONALD SUATING Y SAYON
unless there are other lawful causes for which he should be further detained, and to return this Order
with the certificate of your proceedings within five (5) days from notice hereof.
GIVEN by the Honorable MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN, Chairperson of the Third Division
of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, this 29th day of January 2020.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III

Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1 Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 479 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing
People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

2 CA rollo, pp. 87-89

3 Rollo, pp. 4-15. The Decision dated December 22, 20 14 was penned by Associate Justice
Edgardo L. Delos Santos (Chairman, now a member of this Court) and concurred in by
Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Jhosep Y. Lopez of the Nineteenth Division of
the Court of Appeals, Cebu City.

4 CA rollo, p p . 29-38. The Decision dated July 29,2013 in Criminal Case Nos. 8451-69 and
8452-69 was penned by Presiding Judge Felipe G. Banzon of the Regional Trial Court of
Silay City, Branch 69.

5 Rollo, p. 14, CA Decision.

6 Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 5, provides:

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.

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) 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
controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such
transactions.

....

7 Republic Act No. 9165 (2002 ), sec. 11, provides:

 SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - 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 possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities,
regardless of the degree of purity thereof:

....

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties
shall be graduated as follows:

...

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a:
fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000.00 , if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five
(5) grams of opium , morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana
resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu ", or other
dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD,
GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives,
without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.

8 Rollo, p. 5.

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 CA rollo, p. 30.

12 Id. The witnesses for the Prosecution are: Police Chief Inspector Paul Jerome
Puentespina, PO2 Christopher Panes, SPO1 Rayjay Rebadomia, Hon. Ireneo Celis, PO2
Reynaldo Bernil, Jose Junsay, Jr., PO2 Ian Libo-on, and PO2 Ariel Magbanua.

13 Id. at 31.

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Rollo, p. 6.

18 CA rollo, p. 31.

19 Id. at 32.

20 Id.
21 Id.

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 Rollo, p . 7 .

26 CA rollo, p. 32.

27 Rollo, p . 7.

28 Id.

29 Id . The witnesses for the defense were Albert Salonga, Aileen Capote, Luz Maalat,
Jenelyn Javellana, and Romeo Suating.

30 CA rollo, p. 33.

31 Rollo, p. 7 .

32 CA rollo, pp. 37-38.

33 Id. at 36 .

34 Id. at 34-36 .

35 Id.

36 Id.

37 Id. at 37-38.

38 Id. at 10-28, Brief for Accused-Appellant.

39 Rollo. p. 9.

40 Id. at 14.

41 Id. at 10.

42 Id.

43 Id.

44 Id. at 13.
45 Id. at 14.

46 CA rollo, pp. 87-89 .

47 Rollo, p. I.

48 CA rollo, pp. 94-95.

49 Rollo, pp. 22-23.

50 Id. at 24-28, Manifestation; and 32-34, Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief.

51 CA rollo, p . 19, Brief for the Accused-Appellant. Suating was firm that he did not commit
the charge and that he does not own the articles seized from his possession.

52 Id.

53 See Rollo, pp. 9-10, CA Decision.

54 CA rollo, p . 20, Brief for the Accused-Appellant.

55 Id. at 21.

56 Id. at 23.

57 Id. at 24.

58 Id. at 25.

59 Id .

60 Id.

61 Id. at 26.

62 Id. at 52-69, Brief for the Appellee.

63 Id. at 58.

64 Id. at 59.

65 Id. at 60.

66 Id . at 61.

67 Id. at 67.

68 People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
69 People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

70 Franco v. People, 780 Phil. 36, 43 (2016) [Per J. Reyes, Third Division].

71 People v. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226 (2011) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].

72 People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].

73 Id. at 29 citing People v. Alberto, 625 Phil. 545 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second
Division].

74 Id.

75 Id. citing Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 686 Phil. 137 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

76 Id.

77 People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416, 426 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

78 People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division] citing Fajardo
v. People, 691 Phil. 752 (2012) [Per J. Perez, Second Division] .

79 People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416, 434 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

80 Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 , 587 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division] citing United
States v. Howard-Arias, 679 F.2d 363, 366; and United States v. Ricco, 52 F.3d 58.

8l People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265 , 278 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing
People v. Remigio, 700 Phil. 452 (2012) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].

82 CA rollo, p. 34 .

83 Id. at 35.

84 Id. at 36.

85 Id. at 34.

86 People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416,427 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

87 Id.

88 Id.

89 Id.

90 Republic Act No. 9165 (2002) was the prevailing law before its amendment in 2014 by
Republic Act No. 10640.

91 Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 21(1).

92 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 (2002).

93 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 21 (a).

94 People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) [Per J . Brion, Second Division .

95 People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].

96 People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

97 Id. at 541.

98 See CA rollo, p. 24, Brief for Accused-Appellant.

99 People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

100 See CA rollo, pp. 31-32.

101 People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

102 Id. at 283.

103 Rollo, p. 7; and CA rollo, p. 32.

104 The Decision of the Court of Appeals mentioned that based on the version of the
Prosecution, the inventory and photograph of the seized illicit drugs were undertaken in the
presence of an elected public official. However, the Court of Appeals seemingly deviated
from this thereby stating in its discussion that the inventory was signed by, among others,
representatives from the media and the Department of Justice whose names were
apparently not disclosed or their circumstances not even elaborated in the records of the
case. Also, they were not made as witnesses for the defense.

105 Rollo, p. 7.

106 CA rollo, p. 57, Brief for the Appellee. That the inventory and photograph were made in
the presence of Cells and a Barangay Kagawad was similarly affirmed in the Brief of the
Appellant at pages 16-17 of the CA Rollo.

107 People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 356, 376 (2018) [Per J.
Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].

108 Id. at 375.

109 CA rollo, p. 25.

110 See CA rollo, pp. 32-33; and rollo, p. 7.

111 See People v. Coreche, 612 Phil. 1238 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].

112 People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265, 278 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
113 People v. Crispo, G. R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 356, 377-378 [Per J.
Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].

114 Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 475 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

115 Id.

116 Id. at 476.

117 People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008) [Per J.Brion, Second Division].

118 People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

119 CA rollo, p. 35, RTC Decision.

120 Id. at 36.

121 Lescano v. people, 778 Phil. 460, 479 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing
People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

122 CA rollo, p. 36.

123 Rollo, p. 13.

124 people v.Capuno, 655 Phil. 226 (2011) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].

125 Id. at 244.

126 See Rollo, p. 7 , CA Decision.

127 People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) [Per J.Brion, Second Division].

128 Id. at 244.

129 Id .

130 Id.

131 See Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 470 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].