THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 227403. October 13, 2021 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CHIH CHIEN YANG, ACCUSED-

APPELLANT.

DECISION

ZALAMEDA, J.:

Faithful observance of the rules provided under Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165,
otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" is always desirable from
our police authorities. Nevertheless, the evils sought to be avoided by these rules are obviated when
the dangerous drugs recovered are of large quantities. Thus, while we still strongly encourage our
police to strictly follow the rules on chain of custody, we will generally not prevent the arms of our
law from reaching large-scale peddlers of dangerous drugs by the simple reason that departures
from said rules were committed.

The Case

This Court resolves an appeal assailing the Decision1 dated 04 September 2015, of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06171 which affirmed the Judgment2 dated 15 April 2013
rendered in Criminal Case No. 08-0517 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 259, Parañaque City
(RTC), finding Chih Chien Yang (Yang) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Section 11, Article II of
RA 9165, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
₱1,000,000.00.

Antecedents

In an Information dated 21 April 2008, Yang was charged of illegally possessing 9.9 kilograms of
Ketamine Hydrochloride. The accusation reads:

That on or about the 19th day of April, 2008 in the City of Parañaque, above-
named accused, not being authorized by law to possess, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his control and custody
Ketamine Hydrochloride weighing 9.9 Kilograms, a dangerous drug. 1a⍵⍴h!1

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

When arraigned, Yang pleaded not guilty.4 Thus, trial on the merits followed, during which the
prosecution offered the following version of the events that led to Yang's arrest:

At around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 19 April 2008, a team composed of police operatives
from the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSOTF) from Camp Crame, Quezon
City, headed by Police Chief Inspector Rommel Ochave went to Yang's residence at No. 19-B
Humility St., Multinational Village, Parañaque City, to implement a search warrant dated 18 April
2008 issued by Manila Executive Judge Reynaldo G. Ros of the RTC of Manila, Branch 33, for
probable violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165. The group was likewise armed with a warrant of
arrest dated 21 May 2007 issued by Judge Catherine Manodon of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 43, against Yang for probable violation of Article 172, in relation to Article 175
(paragraph 4) of the Revised Penal Code.

Upon entering Humility Street, Multinational Village, Parañaque City, the police operatives
spotted Yang driving his black Toyota Innova which they tried to flag down. However, instead of
stopping, Yang sped off prompting the team to gave chase until he was cornered at the gate of
Multinational Village, Parañaque City. The police operatives then instructed Yang to alight from his
vehicle, showed him the Warrant of Arrest, and effected his arrest. PO3 Nabarte, together with PO2
De Guzman, PO2 Cubyan and Yang, boarded the Toyota Innova and proceeded to Yang's
residence to implement the Search Warrant while the rest of the team followed. Upon their arrival
thereat, and in the presence of Barangay Kagawads Espiritu and Cristobal who were summoned to
witness the search, the police operatives presented the search warrant to Yang and informed him of
the purpose of the search and his constitutional rights.

Afterwards, the police operatives, together with Yang and Barangay Kagawads Espiritu and
Cristobal, entered Yang's two-storey house and started searching the ground floor but found nothing.
They proceeded thereafter to the second floor and the police operatives started searching the
master's bedroom and middle room, but no illegal drugs were likewise found. However, the police
operatives found a room at the right portion of the second floor which was locked with a fingerprint
scanner, so the police operatives requested Yang to open the said room. Thereat, the PO3 Nabarte
recovered a white paper bag labelled "VNC" and inside of which was a transparent plastic bag
labelled "TBY SHOP.COM". The said transparent plastic bag, on the other hand, contained a yellow
SM plastic bag which contained two (2) transparent bags of powdery white substance suspected to
be Ketamine. PO3 Nabarte then placed the marking "JENN" and the date on the recovered pieces of
evidence inside the room.

After searching Yang's house, the police operatives proceeded to search the Toyota Innova
driven by Yang, still in the latter's presence and Barangay Kagawads Espiritu and Cristobal. When
the police operatives opened the trunk, PO3 Nabarte recovered two (2) travelling bags. The first bag
was colored black and gray, with label "Structure Sport" which was immediately marked by PO3
Nabarte as EXH B JENN 04-19-18. Inside the said bag were three (3) plastic bags tied with straw,
which they also marked as EXH B-1 JENN 04-19-18, EXH B-2 JENN 04-19-18, and EXH B-3 JENN
04-19-18.

The second bag was colored black and blue, with label "Hilfiger," which was immediately marked
by PO3 Nabarte as EXH C JENN 04-19. Inside the said bag were two (2) transparent plastic bags
tied with straw and containing white powdery substance. PO3 Nabarte marked the plastic bags with
EXH C-1 JENN 04-19-18 and EXH C-2 JENN 04-19-18.

The police operatives also recovered machines used to produce credit cards. They then
conducted a physical inventory of the confiscated items and also took pictures thereof. Barangay
Kagawad Espiritu subsequently issued a Certification of orderly search relative to the
implementation of the search warrant, which Yang refused to sign. PO3 Nabarte, on the other hand,
issued four (4) Receipts of Property Seized enumerating all of the foregoing confiscated items, which
were signed by Barangay Kagawads Espiritu and Cristobal. PO3 Nabarte likewise issued a
Certificate of Orderly Search signed by Barangay Kagawads Espiritu and Cristobal. Yang, however,
refused to sign said Certificate.

Thereafter, Yang was brought to Camp Crame, Quezon City, for booking and investigation
together with the confiscated items. The police operatives likewise returned thereat. At the said
office, a representative from the Department of Justice in the person of Prosecutor Manabat was
waiting. The police operatives then showed the confiscated items to Prosecutor Manabat. The police
operatives likewise prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination for the confiscated items.
Together with the request, all of the foregoing seized items were submitted to the PNP Crime
Laboratory by PO3 Nabarte.

Forensic Chemist Abad of the PDEA Laboratory Service, who received the seized items,
conducted a laboratory examination on the said items. From among the specimens submitted for
chemical examination, only the bag of white crystalline substance marked as EXH C-2 JENN 04-19-
18 gave positive result for Ketamine Hydrochloride, while the rest tested negative for dangerous
drugs as contained in her Final Chemistry Report No. DD-073-0820 dated 20 April 2008.5 (Citations
omitted)

Meanwhile, Yang gave a completely different re-telling of what transpired. Thus:

At around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 19 April 2008, Yang was about to leave his house
enroute [sic] to Angeles City, Pampanga, to bring computers and laptops when he noticed several
persons and vehicles outside his house. He was ordered to stop but fearing that it might be a
kidnapping situation, Yang drove towards the gate of the village to report to the security guards the
incident and that he was being followed. The security guards informed Yang that the men following
him introduced themselves as policemen. The police officers then informed Yang that he was driving
a carnapped vehicle and was asked to produce the official receipt and certificate of registration. After
handing over to the police officers the papers of the vehicle, Yang was handcuffed and was driven
around Multinational Village. He then noticed that his car was no longer there. After half an hour, the
police officers brought Yang to his house where he was shown a search warrant. He was directed to
open his house where his wife, child, and househelp were. Upon entering his house, Yang saw
computers and laptop which, he was told, were to be used as evidence against him. After being
informed of the procedure of the search, the police officers started to search the entire house. Later,
Yang was handed the car key and was asked to open the doors. When he opened the trunk, he was
surprised to see bags instead of the computers and laptops that were supposedly inside the trunk.
The bags were opened by the police operatives and Yang was informed that the said bags
contained drugs.

Yang further testified that he was taken to Camp Crame, Quezon City, where the police
operatives demanded Php 10,000,000.00 from him. When his lawyer arrived, the latter was able to
negotiate and lower the amount being demanded to Php 1,000,000.00 in exchange for the dropping
of the case against Yang. The latter's godmother, Evelyn Sy Ting, provided the amount of Php
1,000,000.00. Yang's girlfriend, Mary Jane Gloria, saw his lawyer hand over the said amount of the
police officers. Yang also testified that he had a prior case in Quezon City involving credit cards but
this was dismissed.6 (Citations omitted)

Ruling of the RTC

After trial, the RTC rendered judgment finding Yang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.7 The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused CHIH CHIEN

YANG in Criminal Case No. 08-0517, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for
Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, R.A. 9165 and considering the weight of ketamine
hydrochloride found in his possession which is 9.9 kilograms, he is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php
1,000,000.00.
 Further it appearing that the accused CHIH CHIEN YANG is detained at the
Metro Manila District Jail (MMDJ), Special Intensive Care Area (SICA), Camp
Bagong Diwa, Taguig City and considering the penalty imposed, the OIC-Branch
Clerk of Court is hereby directed to prepare the Mittimus for the immediate transfer
of said accused from the MMDJ-SIC to the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City.

The representative sample of the ketamine hydrochloride subject of this case is

forfeited in favor of the government and the OIC-Branch Clerk of Court is likewise
directed to immediately turn over the same to the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal pursuant to Sec. 21 of RA 9165 and Supreme
Court OCA Circular No. 51-2003.

SO ORDERED.8

The RTC found Yang's defense of denial and frame-up too weak to overcome the presumption
of regularity in the performance of duties extended in favor of the police officers. It was pointed out
that personalities that were allegedly present during his arrest and could testify as to its irregularity
were not presented as witnesses by the defense. The trial court, nevertheless, acknowledged that it
was the prosecution that had the burden to prove Yang's guilt considering that the latter enjoys the
presumption of innocence. On this score, the RTC was convinced that the prosecution was able to
discharge this burden. The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers narrating
what had transpired during the implementation of the arrest warrant and search warrant issued
against Yang. Also, while the RTC observed some departure from the requirements prescribed in
Section 21 of RA 9165, the court did not see this as fatal for the prosecution as there was substantial
compliance with the law and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
All told, the RTC found that all the elements of the crime charged were established by the
prosecution.9

Aggrieved, Yang appealed his conviction to the CA.

Ruling of the CA

The CA, in its assailed Decision10 dated 22 December 2011, affirmed the RTC's ruling and
disposed of Yang's appeal in this manner:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED. The

Decision dated 15 April 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch
259, in Criminal Case No. 08-0517, is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.11

The CA agreed with the trial court that the elements of the crime charged was fully established.
It was shown that Yang had free and conscious constructive possession of the seized drugs without
having any legal authority for such possession. The CA also found no reason to interfere with the
factual findings of the RTC with regard to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. As for the
defenses that Yang offered, the CA found them underwhelming to defeat the evidence presented to
prove his guilt. The appellate court is in accord with the RTC that in the absence of clear and
convincing proof that the police officers had ill motive to implicate Yang, their testimonies with
respect to the implementation of the warrants must be given full faith and credence. The CA also
saw as unbelievable Yang's story of extortion. Considering the seriousness of the allegation, Yang
failed to substantiate the same by evidence. Further, the alleged extortion is belied by the
certification issued by the barangay officials attesting to the orderly implementation of the search
warrant.12

Yang now comes before the Court appealing the CA's affirmance of his conviction. When
required to submit their respective briefs,13 both Yang and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
manifested their lack of desire to do so.14

Issue

The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether Yang was correctly convicted for violating
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.

In his Brief for the Accused-Appellant15 which he filed before the CA, Yang merely claimed that
he was illegally arrested without a warrant and thus, the evidence secured from the warrantless
arrest should be considered inadmissible.16

Ruling of the Court

We affirm Yang's conviction.

At the onset, Yang's assertion that he was illegally arrested without a warrant was already
addressed adequately by the CA. We agree with the CA that apart from the search warrant against
him, the police officers were also implementing an arrest warrant issued in connection with another
criminal charge for Estafa he was facing. These warrants are on record and presented in
evidence.17 Thus, there is no reason to doubt the truth about the legality of Yang's arrest.

More importantly, We find no reason to disturb the RTC's and CA's uniform ruling that the
prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) the accused is in possession
of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized
by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.18

Here, it was shown that Yang had in his free and conscious possession, 9.9 kilograms of
powdery white substance that later tested positive for ketamine hydrochloride. Indeed, the seized
drug was recovered from the vehicle that Yang was seen driving.

The fact that ketamine hydrochloride is a dangerous drug is also established. According to the
World Health Organization (WHO), misuse and abuse of Ketamine Hydrochloride have the following
main neurobehavioral effects: anxiety, agitation, changes of perception (e.g. loss of notion of danger,
visual disturbances), and, disorientation and impairment of motor functions, such as ataxia and
dystonic reaction. In these conditions, the intoxicant's self-control is drastically impaired, rendering
said person a potential source of physical harm or injury, not only to himself or herself, but also to
others. Other common side-effects also include: slurred speech, dizziness, blurred vision,
palpitations, chest pains, vomiting, and insomnia.19 News reports also described that in smaller
doses, Ketamine Hydrochloride produces a mild and dreamy feeling. However, hallucinogenic
effects happen when large quantities are consumed.20 In 2005, the Dangerous Drugs Board issued
Board Resolution No. 3, s. 2005, classifying ketamine hydrochloride as a dangerous drug.21

Finally, Yang failed to show any lawful authority to possess the confiscated ketamine.
 The Court also agrees with the RTC that despite of the police officer's failure to observe fully the
requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, the prosecution was able to prove the corpus delicti of
the crime.

Indeed, in every prosecution of violations of RA 9165, including illegal possession of dangerous

drugs, the prosecution is mandated to present the corpus delicti of the crime, i.e., the seized drugs,
as evidence in court. Concomitantly, the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the identity of the dangerous drugs by showing that the drugs offered in court as evidence
were the same substances bought or recovered from the accused.22

In this regard, the chain of custody rule embodied in Section 21 of RA 9165 was designed
precisely to ensure that all the rights of the accused are guaranteed and the credibility of the corpus
delicti safeguarded.23 Part of the chain of custody rule, RA 9165 requires that the marking, physical
inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after the seizure and
confiscation of the same. It was made compulsory that the physical inventory and photograph-taking
be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his
representative or counsel, as well these required witnesses: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA
9165 by RA 1064024 on 07 August 2014,25 "a representative from the media AND the Department
of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; or (b) if after said amendment, "[an] elected public
official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." These witnesses
were required by law specifically "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove
any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence."26

Here, the criminal act was committed on 19 April 2008 or before the amendment of RA 9165.
Thus, aside from the accused or his representative, three (3) specific witnesses were required during
the conduct of inventory and photograph-taking of the seized drugs. However, it appears that in the
present case, there were no representatives from the media and the DOJ present as witness to
these procedures. Only the three (3) barangay officials witnessed the conduct of inventory and
photograph-taking of the seized items; and while a DOJ representative later on appeared in the Anti-
Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force office and saw the seized items, this hardly satisfies the
requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165.

Nonetheless, this Court find this misstep not fatal for the prosecution's cause. In People v. Lung
Wai Tang,27 the Court held that the large quantity of drugs seized renders unlikely the possibility of
planting or tampering evidence. Thus:

This Court finds unreliable accused-appellant's version that he was merely framed-up. The
considerable quantity of seized drugs totaling 7.9 kilograms renders his claim that the seized drugs
were planted by the police officers difficult to believe. Unlike miniscule amounts, a large quantity of
drugs worth millions is not as susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration[.]

xxx

Strict adherence to the procedural safeguards is required where the quantity of illegal drugs
seized is small, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration of evidence. On the
other hand, large amounts of seized drugs are not as easily planted, tampered, or manipulated.
Here, the considerable quantity of shabu consisting of almost eight (8) kilograms provides strong
probative value favoring the prosecution's version of events. (Emphasis supplied)

In a similar fashion, the drugs found in Yang's possession are of considerable amount, weighing
9.9 kilograms. The evil sought to be prevented by a strict adherence to the procedural safeguards
under RA 9165 is not present here. Thus, the Court finds it proper to apply in this case the
pronouncements made in Lung Wai Tang. 1a⍵⍴h!1

Further, the Court notes that in the course of serving the search and arrest warrants against
accused-appellant at the specified location of the search, the police officers spotted accused-
appellant driving his vehicle. When flagged down, accused-appellant tried to evade the police
officers by speeding away, and a chase then ensued. Accused-appellant was finally apprehended at
the gate of Multinational Village. Jurisprudence has repeatedly declared that flight is an indication of
guilt. The flight of an accused, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance
from which an inference of guilt may be established for a truly innocent person would normally grasp
the first available opportunity to defend himself and assert his innocence.28

More importantly, the testimonies of the key prosecution witnesses Police Officer 3 Jose Nabarte
(PO3 Nabarte) and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Chemist Maria Criser Abad (PDEA
Chemist Abad), were able to account for the movement and condition of the seized drug from the
time of seizure up until its presentation in court. They testified:

PO3 Jose Nabarte

Q: When you proceeded to your office at Camp Crame, Quezon City, where were the
evidences [sic] recovered at that time?

A: Inside the Innova, Ma'am.

Q: Who were inside the Innova where the evidence recovered was placed?

A: The suspect, myself, and the arresting officer PO2 de Guzman and was driven by
PO2 Cubyan, Ma'am.

COURT:

Q: So there was no other persons at that time had access to the alleged dangerous
drugs?

A: None, your Honor.

xxx

Q: So what happened after the preparation of the Request for Laboratory Examination?

A: I brought the recovered evidence to the PDEA, your Honor.

Q: Who were your companions?

A: Our team leader Ochave, and PO2 de Guzman, your Honor.

Q: While on the Police Station, nobody had access to the same drugs confiscated
except you and the three (3) others?

A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: Up to the time you brought these items to the crime laboratory?

A: PDEA, your Honor.

Q: To the PDEA?

A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: What happened to the PDEA?

A: I had the request received and the evidence surrendered to them, your Honor.

PROS. ROMA:

Q: Mr. Witness, did you bring the recovered evidence to the PDEA?

A: On the same day, around past 10:00 o'clock.

COURT:

Q: 10:00 o'clock in the evening?

A: Yes, your Honor.

PROS.ROMA:

Q: Now you mentioned of the Request for Laboratory Examination. Now, if the Request
for Laboratory Examination which you said you brought together with the recovered
evidence will be shown to you, can you identify it?

A: Yes Ma'am.

Q: Showing now to you a Request for Laboratory Examination dated April 19, 2008, will
you please examine and identify this document?

A: This is one of our requests to PDEA, Ma'am and this is my signature.

COURT:

Q: Who received this document?

A: The Chemist Maria Criser Abad, your Honor.

Q: From whom did she received this request?

A: From me, your Honor.

Q: It is indicated in the stamp receipt your name and the name of the chemist?
A: Yes, your Honor.29

Maria Criser Abad

Q: Miss Witness, why are you here today?

A: I received a subpoena from the court.

Q: What did you do after you receive [sic] the subpoena from the court?

A: I coordinated with the PDEA laboratory service since I am already not connected with
the agency so I permitted [sic] from them for the

evidence and the reports.

Q: After you coordinated with the PDEA laboratory service, what did you do next, if any?

A: I informed them about the hearing because I have to receive the evidence and the
reports and then accompanied me for this hearing.

Q: And do you have with you the evidence stated in the subpoena?

A: Yes, ma'am.

xxx

Q: Now when you received the Request for Laboratory Examination, this is the only
document you received?

A: Yes, Ma'am.

Q: What did you do upon receiving this Request?

A: I checked the request for Examination and I checked whether the specimens indicate
in the Request are the specimens submitted to me.

xxx

Q: After checking the specimens that were submitted to you and that in the Request for
[L]aboratory Examination, what did you find out?

A: The specimens indicated in the Request are the specimens submitted to me.

xxx

Q: After that, what did you do next, if any?

A: I received all of it. I placed the rubber stamp of the PDEA Laboratory Service and I
indicated all the necessary information and placed my signature then I proceeded
with the examination of the specimens.
 xxx

Q: What did you do after the confirmatory tests was [sic] done?

A: I sealed the samples and turned them over to the evidence custodian.

Q: And how did you seal the evidence or the specimen?

A: I placed my markings and my initials and sealed them.

Q: Do you have with you the specimen?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: So, Miss Witness, through the markings, you will be able to identify the specimens
which were turned over to you and which were the subjected [sic] to the laboratory
examination?

A: Yes, ma'am.30

It is worthy to note that PDEA Chemist Abad was able to identify and authenticate all the
markings and signatures she put on the evidence that were submitted to her. Clearly, her and PO3
Jose Nabarte's testimonies show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs
remained intact. There is no doubt that the items recovered from Yang's possession are the same
pieces of evidence presented in court.

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision

promulgated by the Court of Appeals on 04 September 2015 in CA G.R. CR-HC No.
06171 which affirmed the Judgment dated 15 April 2013 rendered in Criminal Case
No. 08-0517 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 259, Parañaque City, finding Chih
Chien Yang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of ₱1,000,000.00. is AFFIRMED in toto. Accused-appellant is
likewise ORDERED to pay the costs of suit.

All the monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
1a⍵⍴h!1

SO ORDERED.