SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252488. May 12, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 12 May 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252488 (People of the Philippines v. Ernesto
Crisostomo y Tangonan @ "Jay-Ar Labi" and Elenita Cruz y
Crisostomo @ "Elen"). — Accused-appellants Ernesto Crisostomo and
Elenita Cruz were arrested on July 3, 2016 and subsequently charged with
violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165).
Thus, the applicable law is RA 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640
(RA 10640). Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, prescribes the standard in
preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz.:
xxx xxx xxx
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
persons from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
with an elected public official and a representative
of the National Prosecution Service or the media
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 further
mandates:
xxx xxx xxx
Section 21. (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: x x x
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)
xxx xxx xxx
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of
the offense. The prosecution, therefore, is tasked to establish that the
substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance
presented before the court. 1 It is the prosecution's onus to prove every link
in the chain of custody — from the time the drug is seized from the accused,
until the time it is presented in court as evidence. 2 The saving clause under
Section 21 (a), Article II, RA 9165 IRR ordains that non-compliance with the
prescribed requirement shall not invalidate the seizure and custody of the
items provided such non-compliance is justified and the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officers. 3
Generally, there are four (4) links in the chain of custody of the seized
illegal drug: (i) its seizure and marking, if practicable, from the accused, by
the apprehending officer; (ii) its turnover by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; (iii) its turnover by the investigating officer to the
forensic chemist for examination; and, (iv) its turnover by the forensic
chemist to the court. 4
The first link refers to the seizure and marking which must be done
immediately at the place of the arrest. Too, it includes the physical inventory
and taking of photograph of the seized items which should be done in the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, together with
an elected public official and a representative of the Department of Justice
(DOJ) or the media.
Here, the first link of the chain of custody had already been breached
early on. Based on the admission of the prosecution witnesses themselves,
the inventory and photographing were done at Police Station 1, Manila in the
presence of appellants and Albert Calayag with only the media
representative, Danny Garendola, acting as insulating witness. The
prosecution acknowledged that the arresting officers were not able to secure
the presence of an elected official as required by RA 9165, as amended. The
prosecution though reasoned that the barangay officials they contacted
refused to cooperate.
In People v. Paz , 5 the Court acquitted Mark Andrew Paz because only
the barangay kagawad was present. Noticeably absent was a representative
from the DOI or the media.
Likewise, in People v. Vistro , 6 the Court acquitted Jonathan Vistro
because only one insulating witness, a barangay official, was present during
the inventory, thus:
In this case, while a barangay official signed as a witness in the
Certificate of Inventory, there was no mention that the inventory and
photograph of the seized shabu was done in the presence of
representatives from the media and the DOJ. The arresting officer
merely testified that the buy-bust team marked the seized
shabu in the police station since the barangay captain and
other officials of the place where the crime was committed
were relatives of the appellant. He failed to provide a
justifiable ground for the absence of the representatives from
the media and the DOJ during the inventory and photograph
of the seized shabu at the police station. The failure of the
prosecution to secure the attendance of these witnesses,
without providing any reasonable justification therefor,
creates doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized shabu. Thus, there is no recourse for this Court other
than to reverse the conviction of appellant. (Emphasis supplied)
The Court has repeatedly stressed that the presence of the required
insulating witnesses at the time of the inventory is mandatory. Under the
law, the presence of the insulating witnesses is a high prerogative
requirement, the non-fulfillment of which casts serious doubts upon the
integrity of the corpus delicti itself — the very prohibited substance itself —
and for that reason imperils the prosecution's case. 7
Nonetheless, failure to strictly comply with rules of procedure does not
ipso facto invalidate or render void the seizure and custody over the items
so long as the prosecution is able to show that "(a) there is justifiable ground
for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved." 8
Yet, the Court is not convinced by the prosecution's flimsy excuse that
the arresting officers failed to secure the cooperation of the barangay
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 officials. If they could not secure the presence of an elected official, they
could have invited a representative from the DOJ, which they did not even
attempt to do. This, in fact, reflects their nonchalant attitude towards their
duty to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule.
We thus find that the prosecution utterly failed to (1) prove the corpus
delicti of the crime especially since the amount involved in this case is
minuscule, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an
exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical
characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to
people in their daily lives; 9 (2) establish an unbroken chain of custody of the
seized drugs; and (3) offer any explanation why the Chain of Custody Rule
was not complied with. Accordingly, the Court is constrained to acquit
appellants based on reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 23,
2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09721 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellants ERNESTO CRISOSTOMO y TANGONAN and
ELENITA CRUZ y CRISOSTOMO are ACQUITTED of the charge of violating
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 16-327106.
Accused-appellant ERNESTO CRISOSTOMO y TANGONAN is
ACQUITTED of the charge of violating Section 11 (3), Article II of RA 9165 in
Criminal Case No. 16-327107.
Accused-appellant ELENITA CRUZ y CRISOSTOMO is ACQUITTED of
the charge of violating Section 11 (3), Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case
No. 16-327108.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to a)
immediately release ERNESTO CRISOSTOMO y TANGONAN and ELENITA
CRUZ y CRISOSTOMO from custody unless they are being held for some
other lawful cause or causes; and b) submit a report on the action taken
within five (5) days from notice.
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per
Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021).

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON

Footnotes

1. People v. Miranda , G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019.

6. G.R. No. 225744, March 6, 2019.

8. Supra note 2.
9. People v. Pagsigan, G.R. No. 232487, September 03, 2018, 878 SCRA 545, 562.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com