J.

\epubltc of tbe ~btlipptnes

$'>upretne QCourt
;ffl!lantla

SECOND DIVISION

JASPER TAN y SIA, G.R. No. 232611

Petitioner,
Present:

PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J,
- versus - Chairperson,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
M. LOPEZ,
PEOPLE OF THE ROSARIO, and
PHILIPPINES, J. LOPEZ, JJ
Respondent.
Promulgated:
APR262021 ~
x-------------------------- -------------------------------- ------------ -------------------x

RESOLUTION

M. LOPEZ, J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari' under Rule 45

of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision 2 dated
February 14, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 01396.

ANTECEDENTS

Two (2) Infonnations 3 dated June 24, 2002 were filed against Jasper
Tan y Sia (Jasper) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City,
Branch 6, charging him with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous
Drugs under Sections 15 and 16, Article III of Republic Act (RA) No. 6425:

1
Rollo, pp. I 1-27.
2
Id. at I 08- 122; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren, with the concurrence of Associate Justices
Rafae l Anton io M. Santos and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.
3
Id. at 29-30.

r
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 232611

CRIM CASE NO. 11265

That on June 22, 2002 at 2: 15 in the afternoon more or less at

Magsaysay comer Tomas Claudio Streets, Miputak,' Dipolog City, '
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, knowing fully well that unauthorized sale and distribution
of regulated drug is punishable by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously sell, distribute, and deliver one (1) small
transparent plastic sachet of Methyl [amphetamine] Hydrochloride, more
particularly known as "Shabu," approximately weighing 0.10 gram, to a
poseur buyer with the use of two (2) pieces marked One Hundred Peso bills
bearing Serial Nos. CX093824 and TL275508, without legal authority to
sell the same, said act having been committed in gross violation of Section
15, Article III ofR.A. 6425, as amended.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

CRIM CASE NO. 11 266

That on June 23, 2002, at 2: 15 in the afternoon, more or less, at

Magsaysay comer Tomas Claudio Streets, Miputak, Dipolog City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, knowing fully well that unauthorized use, possession and
control ofregulated drug is punishable by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession and control six (6) big
and two (2) small transparent plastic sachets of methyl amphetamine
hydrochloride, more particularly known as "shabu[,"] a form of regulated
drug, approximately weighing a total of 2.74 gram, one (1) piece Five
Hundre[d] Peso bill, Fifteen (15) pieces One Hundred Peso bills and two
(2) pieces Fifty Peso bill which were proceeds of the offense, without legal
authority to possess the same in gross Violation of Section 16, Article III of
R.A. 6425, as amended.

CONTRARY TO LA W. 4

On arraignment, Jasper pleaded not guilty to the cnmes charged.

Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. 5

During trial, the prosecution presented two (2) witnesses,6 namely, PSI
Susan Memoracion Cayabyab (PSI Susan), Forensic Chemical Officer,7 and
PO2 Jose Rizaldy Calibugar (PO2 Jose), the police officer who conducted
surveillance and buy-bust operation. 8 The witnesses are members of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Dipolog City Station Anti-Vice Team. 9

The prosecution witnesses testified that they have been conducting

surveillance operations against Jasper beginning the last week of May 2002. 10
On June 21, 2002, the police officers applied for a search warrant with Judge

~ Id. at 29-30.
5 Id. at 30.
6
Id.
7
Id. at 34.
8
Id. at 30.
9
Id. at 32.

r
10
TSN, January 29, 2004, p. 6; Rolla, p. 151.
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 232611

Eustolia Mata of Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Branch 2. 11 The

next day, the police officers gave two (2) marked 100-peso bills to the poseur-
buyer who transacted with Jasper at the gate of the latter's house. The police
officers were observing the transaction covertly. The buy-bust operation was
successful so they handcuffed Jasper, and served him a search warrant dated
June 21, 2002. Thereafter, they searched Jasper's room in the presence of
Barangay Captain Emerenciana Velasco. Recovered were the marked money,
amounting to P2, 100.00, drug paraphernalia, and white crystalline substance
inside six (6) big plastic sachets and two (2) small plastic sachets found on a
table and on top of a cabinet inside Jasper's room. The sachets with white
crystalline substance were delivered to the crime laboratory for examination
and all tested positive for shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride). 12 For his
part, Jasper offered the defense of denial and frame-up. 13

On November 10, 2015, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision 14

convicting Jasper of the charges against him. The trial court ruled that denial
is a weak defense, and the prosecution was able to prove Jasper's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt in both cases. The RTC disposed, thus:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered declaring accused JASPER

TAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged in these two (2)
Informations. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the following:

1.) For Criminal Case No. 11265 for Violation of Sec. 15, Art.
III of R.A. 6425, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imprisonment
from FOUR (4) years, TWO (2) months and ONE (1) day to SIX (6) years
of prision correccional in its maximum period and to pay a FINE in the
amount of TWELVE THOUSAND ([P]12,000.00) PESOS with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.

2.) For Criminal Case No. 11266, applying the Indeterminate

Sentence Law, imprismunent from ONE (I) year, EIGHT (8) months and
TWENTY ONE (21) days to TWO (2) years, ELEVEN (11) months and
TEN ( 10) days of prision correccional and to pay a FINE in the amount of
FOUR THOUSAND ([P]4,000.00) PESOS with subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency.

The subject shabu and other items confiscated from the accused are
hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government and shall be disposed
of appropriately in accordance with existing rules.

so ORDERED. 15
Aggrieved, Jasper filed an appeal before the CA. He questioned the
validity of the buy-bust operation, the prosecution's failure to account for each
link in the chain of custody, the validity of the search warrant, and the
sufficiency of PO2 Jose's testimony to establish his guilt.
11
TSN, October I 6, 2003, p. 5; Rollo, p. 137.
12
Id. at 32-33.
13
Id. at 32.
14
Id. at 29-36; penned by Presiding Judge Jose Rene G. Dondoyano.
15
Id. at 35-36.
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 232611

However, the CA affirmed Jasper's conviction m a Decision dated

February 14, 2017:

WHEREFORE, the assailed Joint Judgment dated November 10,

2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, 9 th Judicial Region,
Branch 6, convicting the appellant Jasper Tany Sia for violation of Sections
15 and 16, A11icle III of Republic Act No. 6425 , as amended, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION,
Accused-appellant Jasper Tan y Sia is hereby sentenced to suffer the
following:

1.) For Criminal Case No. 11 265 for Violation of Section 15,
Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, accused-appellant Jasper Tan y Sia is
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty imprisonment of six (6) months of
arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1 )
day of prision correctional, as maximum;

2 .) For Criminal Case No. 11266, for Violation of Section 16,

Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, accused-appellant Jasper Tany Sia is
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months of
arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1)
day of prision correccional, as maximum.

SO ORDERED. 16

Hence, this recourse. Jasper assails the validity of the search warrant
because it does not have a specific description of the house and its premises. 17
Fmihermore, he asserts that the search was invalid because he was already
arrested and his movement restricted when the search was conducted, so his
right to witness the search was violated. 18 Jasper likewise argues that the
prosecution did not comply with the rule on chain of custody. In sum, he posits
the seized drugs are not admissible as evidence, and the buy-bust operation as
well as his atTest were illegal. 19

On the contrary, the People of the Philippines (People), through the

Office of the Solicitor General, contends that the prosecution has clearly
established Jasper's guilt beyond reasonable doubt in both charges of Illegal
Sale and Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs. 20 The People states that the
prosecution has established the conduct of the buy-bust operation, and
consequently, the legality of Jasper's arrest. 21 They further aver that the non-
presentation of the informant, who acted as poseur-buyer, is not essential22
because what matters are the unbroken chain of custody of the illegal drugs
and that the integrity and evidentiary value thereof have not been
compromised. 23 The People also maintain that there was a lawful search by

16
id. at 13-14.
17
Id. at 23.
18
Id. at 23-24.
19
Id. at 16.
20
id. at 203.
1
" Id. at 220.
22
Id. at 222.
"' Id. at 223.

r
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 232611

virtue of a valid search warrant 24 and Jasper's defense of denial cannot

exculpate him from criminal liability. 25 Finally, the cited error in the
Information in Criminal Case No. 11266 is inconsequential. 26

RULING

The petition is meritorious.

The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is

a constitutionally protected right. To overturn this presumpti0n, the
prosecution must proffer proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of
proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty as to convince and satisfy the
conscience of those who act in judgment. 27 The constitutional presumption
of innocence requires the courts to take a more than casual consideration of
every circumstance or doubt favoring the innocence of the accused. 28 If there
is doubt, that doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused in order to give
flesh and bones to this constitutionally-protected right. Applying this precept
in the case at bar, this Court is convinced that the prosecution failed to prove
Jasper's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, hence, he must be acquitted.

The prosecution failed to establish

the buy-bust operation through the
''objective test. "

To determine the validity of a buy-bust operation, the Court has

consistently applied the "objective test." In People v. Doria, 29 the Court
explained that the "objective test" requires the details of the purported
transaction during the buy-bust operation to be clearly and adequately shown,
i. e., the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to
purchase the drug, and the promise or payment of the consideration, payment
using the buy-bust or marked money, up to the consummation of the sale by
the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale whether to the informant
alone or the police officer.30 All these details must be subject of strict scrutiny
by courts to ensure that citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an
offense.3 1

Here, the prosecution failed to clearly establish the details of the

purported sale. Nothing in the records shows the initial contact between the
poseur-buyer and the seller, and the manner by which the initial contact was
made. The offer to buy, the willingness to sell, and the agreed purchase price
were not satisfactorily shown. P02 Jose's testimony as to the details that led
24
Id. at 225.
25
Id. at 228.
26
Id. at 229.
27
Franco v. People, 780 Phil. 36, 43 (20 16).
28
People v. Abdula, G.R. No. 2 12 192, November 2 1, 20 18, citing People v. Ratunil, 390 Phil. 2 18, 235
(2000).
29
361 Phil. 595 (1999).
30
Id. at 621.
31
People v. Pagkalinawan, 628 Phil. IO l , 11 3 (20 I 0).

J
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 2326 11

to the consummation of the sale is lacking in detail to satisfy the rigid

requirements of the "objective test." What is more, considering that PO2 Jose
admitted that it was the confidential informant who transacted with Jasper, he
was not privy to the entire transaction. There was no indication that PO2 Jose
directly saw an illegal drug being sold to the poseur-buyer. According to PO2
Jose, he went to Jasper's house with PO2 Cesar Maghinay, SPO4 Orlando
Villabito, SPO3 Abunda, and SPO l Abrasaldo.32 He gave two (2) 100-peso
bills, marked with his initials, 33 to the informant who acted as poseur-buyer.
The police officers were hiding when the transaction occurred at the gate of
Jasper's house.34 They were positioned 10 to 15 meters away from Jasper and
the informant,35 but PO2 Jose said he saw Jasper gave the informant shabu in
exchange for P200, to wit:

Q Now, so what happened after that because you decided to conduct

first an entrapment or buy-bust operation to determine if there were
still stocks of shabu in the possession of Jasper Tan?

A We requested one of our informants, sir, to act as poseur buyer.

Q And what was to be used during the entrapment?

A Marked money, sir.

xxxx

Q Now, to whom did you give this marked money?

A To our poseur buyer.

x x xx

Q How many meters were you from them that you could see the
transaction going on?

A 10 to 15 meters.

Q You were hiding or you were exposed?

A Hiding, sir.

Q Now, at that distance what did you see between Jasper Tan and the
poseur buyer?

A A transaction, sir.

Q Goods were being exchanged?

A Yes, sir.

32 SPO3 Abunda's and SPO I Abrasaldo's complete names were not stated; rollo, pp. 3 1, 33, and 53.
33 TSN, October 16, 2003, p. 6; rollo, p. 138.
34 Rollo, pp. 3 1 and 33.

t
35 TSN, October 16, 2003, p. 7; rollo, p. 139.
Resolution 7 G.R. No.232611

xxxx

Q And then what did Jasper Tan do in exchange of the P200.00?

A He gave shabu to our poseur buyer, sir. 36 (Emphases supplied.)

No witness who had personal knowledge of the alleged transaction

which took place between the poseur-buyer and Jasper was presented. The
police officers could not hear or see what was happening between the poseur-
buyer and Jasper, considering the distance of their position from the location
of the transaction along with the size of the subject of this transaction. We
find it doubtful that P02 Jose was able to reasonably ascertain what was said,
if any, between Jasper and the poseur-buyer, and what was handed by Jasper,
if any, to the poseur-buyer. In several cases, this Court took into account the
distance of the officers from the location where the transaction occurred in
acquitting the accused. In People v. Delina,37 the police officers were about
8 to 10 meters away. Likewise, in People v. Conlu, 38 the police officers were
approximately 10 meters away. The Court found that police officer was
"merely an observer" when he testified that he was more or less 7 meters
away 39 in People v. Casacop. 40 In these cases, we found that the police
officers had no personal knowledge of the transaction, their testimonies were
insufficient, and the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer proved fatal.

The poseur-buyer would have established what transaction took place,

but he was not presented. While it is true that a conviction may be confirmed
notwithstanding the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust
operation, such non-presentation is excusable only when the poseur-buyer's
testimony is merely corroborative, there being some other eyewitness who is
competent to testify on the sale transaction. 4 1 Such cannot be said in this case.
Even if coming from a police officer who enjoys the presumption of
regularity, P02 Jose's testimony is insufficient to induce moral certainty. The
presumption of regularity of perfonnance of duty cannot prevail over the
constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused. 42 While we
recognize that there is a need to hide the informant's identity and preserve his
invaluable service to the police, since the poseur-buyer and the confidential
informant were one and the same, without the poseur-buyer's testimony, the
State did not credibly incriminate Jasper. 43

Again, the "objective test" requires that the prosecution paint a clear
picture of how the initial contact between the buyer and the pusher was made.
It is not enough to show that there was an exchange of money and illegal
drugs. The details that led to such exchange must be Clearly and adequately

36
TSN, October 16, 2003, p. 6-7; rollo, pp. 138- 139.
37
G.R. No. 243578, June 30, 2020.
38
G.R. No. 2252 13, October 3 , 2018.
39
People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265, 279(20 15).
40
755 Phil. 265 (20 15).
41
People v. DeliF1a, supra.
42
People v. Tadepa, 3 14 Phil. 23 I, 240 ( 1995).

y
43
See People v. Amin, 803 Phil. 557, 565(20 17).
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 232611

accounted for. Failing in which will certainly cast a doubt on the veracity of
the whole buy-bust operation. On this note alone, the guilt of Jasper as to
illegal sale of dangerous drugs is already doubtful. Nonetheless, the lapses
that the buy-bust team committed in this case are worth mentioning.

The prosecution failed to establish

an unbroken chain of custody.

In cases involving dangerous drugs, the confiscated drugs constitute the

very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of their existence is necessary
to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is essential, therefore, that the identity
and integrity of the seized drugs be established with moral certainty. 44 In
other words, a conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt as
to the identity of the seized drugs. Apart from showing that the elements of
sale and possession are present, the fact that the substance illegally sold and
possessed is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must be established
with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. 45
Should the State not definitively establish that the dangerous drugs presented
in court were the very same substance actually recovered from the accused,
the criminal prosecution for sale or possession of drugs should fail because
the guilt of the accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt. 46

The identity of the seized drugs is established by showing the duly

recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of
seizure or confiscation to receipt by the investigating officer then turn-over to
the forensic laboratory up to presentation in court. The preservation of the
chain of custody applies regardless of whether the prosecution is brought for
a violation of RA No. 6425 or RA No. 9165, which always starts with the
marking of the articles immediately upon seizure. The marking serves to
separate the marked articles from the corpus of all other similar or related
articles from the time of the seizure until disposal thereby obviating the
hazards of switching, "planting," or contamination of the evidence. 47

In Criminal Case No. 11265, it is unclear how the item subject of the
buy-bust operation was turned over to the police officers. P02 Jose did not
testify that he received the item subject of the sale at the place of the buy-bust
operation as the next time the poseur-buyer was mentioned in P02 Jose's
narration was when the police officers brought Jasper to the police station and
the poseur-buyer was there as well. 48 What happened to the item in the
possession of the poseur-buyer was left unexplained since P02 Jose's
testimony did not describe this gap in the chain of custody.

44
People v. Caranto, G.R. No. 2 l 7668, February 20, 2019.
45
People v. Barba, 611 Phil. 330, 337 (2009).
46
People v. Angngao, 755 Phil. 597, 605(2015).
47
People v. San Jose, 836 Phil. 355, 373(2018).
48
TSN, October 16, 2003, p. I I; rollo, p. 143.
Resolution 9 G.R. No. 2326 11

As to Criminal Case No. 11266, P02 Jose testified that they "turned
over the confiscated shabu to the person who issued the warrant," meaning,
their office made a compliance and returned the search warrant to the Court
that issued the search warrant, to wit:

Q So with the several sachets that were recovered from the possession
of the accused containing white crystalline granules believed to be
shabu or [methamphetamine] hydrochloride, a regulated drug, what
did you do with these sachets?

A We turned over the shabu confiscated to the person who issued

the search warrant.

Q You mean to say that your office made a compliance and returned
the search warrant to the Court that issued the search warrant?

A Yes, sir. 49 (Emphasis supplied.)

Thereafter, P02 Jose caused the weighing of the shabu confiscated in

Agencia Dipolog,50 where a certain Elma Bacho weighed the shabu51 and a
certification was issued. 52 The items were weighed including the wrapper. 53
However, upon cross-examination, P02 Jose could not clarify who made the
handwritten entries on the certification as to the weight of the shabu. He said
the entries were made by someone who worked at Elma Bacho's Pawnshop,
but he also stated that the entry was made at the police station,54 viz:

Q The last time you testified that the shabu was weighed by Agencia
Dipolog, is that right?

A Yes, sir.

Q Were you present when the shabu were weighed by a ce11ain Elma
Bacho?

A Yes, sir.

xxx x

Q I show you this Exhibit O which is a certification, you will agree

with me that this certification is all printed or computerized?

A Yes, sir.

Q But the entries opposite the weight are written by ballpen, who
entered this?

A The one who signed the certification and the one who weighed
the shabu.

49 Id.
50 Id.
51
TSN, January 29, 2004, p. 14; rollo, p. 160.
52
TSN, October 16, 2003, p. 11 ; rollo, p. 143.
53
TSN, October 16, 2003, p. 12; roilo, p. 144.
si TSN, January29,2004,p. I S;ro//o,p.16 1.
Resolution 10 G.R. No. 232611

Q Meaning to say it was Elma Bacho who entered this?

A By someone who is working Elma Bacho's pawnshop.

Q And who made this entry here this certification?

A At the Police Station, sir. 55 (Emphases supplied.)

After the items were weighed, it was likewise unclear how these were
delivered to the forensic chemist. P02 Jose testified that he sent the items to
the Crime Lab in Zamboanga City, to wit:

Q And then where did you send the shabu?

A Crime lab.

Q In Zamboanga City?

A In the motorpool, sir.

Q That office in Minaog and transmitted this to the PNP cnme

laboratory in Zamboanga City?

A Yes, sir. 56

However, the prosecution also alleged that the Chief of Police of

Dipolog City sent a transmittal letter addressed to the Regional Crime
Laboratory of the PNP with a request to conduct qualitative laboratory
examination on the drug specimens attached thereto. The letter-request,
however, was first coursed through the Officer-in-Charge of the Provincial
Crime Laboratory who subsequently endorsed the letter request to the PNP
Regional Crime Laboratory in Zamboanga City. 57

Prosecution failed to establish the

circumstances of the markings of
the drugs seized.

P02 Jose also did not testify as to the marking of the items seized.
Nowhere did P02 Jose narrate who did the marking, and when and where the
items seized were marked:

Q So after these illegal items were seized from the accused Jasper Tan
by virtue of the search warrant, what did you do after that?

A We brought him to the police station, sir.

Q Now, was there a receipt of property seized issued?

A Yes, sir.

55
TSN, January 29, 2004, pp. 14- 15; rollo, p. 160-161.
56
TSN, October 16, 2003, p. 12; rollo, p. 144.
57
Rollo, p. 195.
Resolution 11 G.R. No. 2326 11

Q Now, I am showing to you Receipt of Property Seized signed by the

seizing officer, SP04 Orlando Villabito, and signed by Hon.
Barangay Captain Emerenciana Velasco, are you referring to this
one?

A Yes, sir.

xxxx

Q Now, and you said that he was able to buy shabu during the
entrapment from Jasper Tan, where was that shabu.

A He turned it over to us.

Q And that was included also in the receipt of properties seized?

A Yes, sir.

Q So with the several sachets that were recovered from the possession
of the accused containing white crystalline granules believed to he
shabu or [methamphetamine] hydrochloride, a regulated drug, what
did you do with these sachets?

A We turned over the shabu confiscated to the person who issued the
search warrant. 58

Prosecution failed to prove that

same substance recovered from
the accused was the same
substance presented in court.

In P02 Jose's testimony, he did not identify the shabu as evidence in

both Criminal Case Nos. 11265 and 11266. 59 P02 Jose testified as follows:

Q And what did you recover during the search made in the presence of
Barangay Captain Emerenciana Velasco?

A We recovered drug paraphernalia and also shabu, sir.

xxxx

Q How many sachets were recovered by your [sic] from his room?

A Six big plastic sachets containing white crystalline granules and two
small plastic sachets.

Fiscal Lacaya: -
For the record, Your Honor, alJ these plastic sachets were already
marked.

Court: -
Alright.

58
TSN , October 16, 2003, p. 10-11; rollo, pp. 142-143.
59
TSN, October 16, 2003.

j
Resolution 12 G.R. No. 23261 I

xxxx

Q You said that you brought the accused to the police station for
investigation; now, at the police station, where was the poseur
buyer?

A He was at the second floor of the police station, sir.

Q Now, and you said that he was able to buy shabu during the
entrapment from Jasper Tan, where was that shabu?

A He turned it over to us.

Q And that was included also in the receipt of properties seized?

A Yes, sir.

Q So with the several sachets that were recovered from the possession
of the accused containing white crystalline granules believed to be
shabu or [methan1phetamine] hydrochloride, a regulated drug, what
did you do with these sachets?

A We turned over the shabu confiscated to the person who issued the
search warrant. 60

Not only must the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti be shown
to have been preserved, evidence must also definitively clarify that the illegal
drugs presented in court are the same illegal drugs recovered from the
accused. The prosecution failed to account for this lapse in this case. Nowhere
in PO2 Jose's testimony did he identify the seized items to be the same ones
presented in comi as he did not identify the seized items. Inarguably, these
gaps in the chain of custody render the identity and integrity of the corpus
delicti dubious. 6 1

We also note that in Criminal Case No. 11265, the Information states
that the shabu weighs 0.10 grams. However, according to PSI Susan, the net
weight of the shabu is 0.0628 grams, and its gross weight is 0.1629 grams. 62
With respect to Criminal Case No. 11266, the Information states the shabu
weighs 2.74 grams but PSI Susan stated that the net weight of the shabu was
2.0946, and its gross weight is 2.7643 grams. 63 The Court cannot gloss over
these discrepancies in the weight of the seized drugs.

Accordingly, whatever evidence the police officers recovered from

Jasper lose their integrity and evidentiary value because of the violation of the
mandatory requirements of the law. The irregular conduct of buy-bust
operation as well as the procedural lapses the police officers committed
created significant doubt as to Jasper's guilt of the crimes of Illegal Sale and

60
TSN, October 16, 2003, pp. 9 and 1 l; r oflo, pp. 141 and 143.
61
Lopez v. People, 725 Phil. 499, 5 12(20 14).
62
TSN, February 17, 2003, p. 6; rol/o, p. I66.
63
TSN, February 17, 2003, p. 5; ro/lo, p. i65.

)
Resolution 13 G.R. No. 232611

Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 15 and 16, Article III
of RA No. 6425.

The People, however, insists that Jasper did not raise these issues and
the inadmissibility of the evidence during trial. 64 This argument is untenable.
It is a well-established rule that in criminal proceedings, an appeal throws the
whole case open for review. In fact, it becomes the duty of the Court to correct
any e1Tor in the appealed judgment, whether it is made the subject of an
assignment of error or not. 65 It is axiomatic that an appeal in criminal cases
confers upon the Court full jurisdiction and renders it competent to examine
the record and revise the judgment appealed from. 66 Therefore, even at this
stage of the proceedings, it is imperative for proper chain of custody to be
established in order to affirm the conviction of an accused because a
conviction must prudently rest on the moral certainty that guilt has been
proven beyond reasonable doubt. 67

The Search Conducted and the

Admissibility ofthe Seized Items

The place to be searched based on the search warrant is Jasper's room

inside a house located at Magsaysay Street, corner Tomas Claudio Street
where the accused resides. 68 As found by the trial court, the transaction
between Jasper and the poseur-buyer was made at the gate of Jasper's house.
After the buy-bust operation, the police officers handcuffed Jasper, and was
served a search waITant. Thereafter, the police officers searched his room in
the presence of the barangay captain. 69 There is no evidence on record
showing that Jasper was brought to his room to observe the search of the
prenuses.

A reading of P02 Jose's testimony reveals that Jasper did not witness
the search conducted. His testimony in relation to the search conducted reads
in part:

Q Now, to whom did you give this marked money?

A To our poseur buyer.

Q And then what happened after that?

A They had a deal.

Q And where did the dealing or transaction occur between Jasper Tan
and your poseur buyer?

64
Rollo, p. 223.
65
Estarija v. People, 619 Phil. 4 57, 462 (2009).
66
People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, I 057(2018).
67 Id. at I 050-105 1.
68
Rollo, p. 35 .
69
Id. at 33.
Resolution 14 G .R. No. 2326 11

A At the gate of their residence, sir.

xxxx

Q After the transaction was consummated what happened?

A We served the search warrant against Jasper Tan, sir.

xxxx

Q And then what did you make?

A Served the search warrant, sir.

Q You made arrest?

A Yes, sir.

xxxx

Q And you handed the search warrant to him personally?

A Yes, sir.
xxxx

Q Now, did you also search his person as an incident of lawful arrest?

A We handcuffed him before we searched.

xxxx

Q Now, upon service of the search wanant and in obedience to the

mandate of the Court, what did you do after that?

A We fetched Hon. Emerenciana Velasco to go to their house.

xxxx

Q So after Barangay Captain Velasco arrived what transpired?

A We started to search his room, sir.

Q Now, where is his room located in relation to the house?

A At the second floor of their residence, sir.

xxxx

Q And when you made the search it was with the presence of
Barangay Captain Velasco?

A Yes, sir.
xxxx

Q So after these illegal items were seized from the accused Jasper Tan
by virtue of the search warrant, what did you do after that?

I
Resolution 15 G.R. No. 232611

A We brought him to the police station, sir. 70 (Emphases supplied.)

The evidence points to only the barangay captain witnessing the search.
Such a procedure violates Section 8 ffom1erly Section 7), Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court which specifically provides that "no search of a house, room
or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful
occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence ofthe latter,
two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same
locality." Only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or
any member of his family can the search be observed by two (2) witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. The police officers
do not have the discretion to substitute their choice of witness, the barangay
captain in this case, for those witnesses prescribed by the rules. 71

Failure to comply with the safeguards provided by law in implementing

the search warrant makes the search unreasonable. Thus, the exclusionary
rule applies, i.e., any evidence obtained in violation of this constitutional
mandate is inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose. We emphasize
that the exclusionary rule ensures that the fundamental rights to one's person,
houses, papers, and effects are not lightly infringed upon and are upheld. 72
This requirement is intended to guarantee that the implementing officers will
not act arbitrarily which will result to the desecration of the right enshrined
in our Constitution. 73 Violation of this rule is, in fact, punishable under
Article 13 0 of the Revised Penal Code, 74 which provides:

ART. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. -- The penalty

of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed
upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper,
shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the
absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default, without
the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality.

Without the confiscated shabu, no evidence is left to convict Jasper. An

acquittal for both charges is warranted.

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED, and the assailed

Cou1i of Appeals' Decision dated February J 4, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR No.
01396 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Petitioner Jasper Tan y Sia
is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention,
unless he is confined for any other lawful cause. Let an entry of judgment
immediately issue.

70 TSN, October 16, 2003, pp. 7- 10; roflv. pp. l39- 142.
71
People v. Go, 457 Phil. 885, 9 15 (2003).
72
/d.at917.
73
Dabon v. People, 824 Phil. I 08, I 18(2018).
74
P<!ople v. Cesmundu, 292-A Phil. 20, 29 (1993).

f
Resolution 16 G.R. No. 232611

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

of Co1Tections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director
of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report to this Court, within
five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he has taken. Copies
shall also be furnished to the Director General of Philippine National Police
and the Director General of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for
their information.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

ESTELA M.~~RNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

lr1--t~·-
AMY1~1LAZi RO-JAVIER . ROSARIO
A~sociat~ Justice

JHOSE~OPEZ
Associate Justice
Resolution 17 G.R. No. 232611

ATTU:STATION

I attest that the conclusions in the :1.bove Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was as:~igned to the write 1· of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

ESTELA M. ~~RNABE
Senior Associa~e Justice
Chairperson, Sec nd Division

CERTIFICATION I
I
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Gonstitution, and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the corlclusions in the above
Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ALJil~
/ irx'iJ'~!iefJustice