THIRD DIVISION

November 29, 2017

G.R. No. 206965

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
EMMA BOFILL PANGAN, Accused-appellant

DECISION

Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Possession of Dangerous

Drugs; Section 11 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 punishes illegal
possession of dangerous drugs.—Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165
punishes illegal possession of dangerous drugs as follows: 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: . . . . (5) 50
grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”; . . . .
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the
penalties shall be graduated as follows: (1) Life imprisonment and a fine
ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or “shabu” is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty
(50) grams[.] x x x Based on this provision, sufficient evidence to prove the
following elements should be presented: (1) the actual 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 or
consciously possessed the said drug.

Same; Same; In crimes involving dangerous drugs, the State has the
burden of proving not only the elements of the offense but also the corpus
delicti of the charge.—In crimes involving dangerous drugs, the State has
the burden of proving not only the elements of the offense but also
the corpus delicti of the charge. Prosecutions involving illegal possession of
dangerous drugs demand that the elemental act of possession be proven
with moral certainty and not allowed by law. The illicit drugs, itself,
comprise the corpus delicti of the charge and its existence is necessary to
obtain a judgment of conviction. Therefore, it is important in these cases
that the identity of the illegal drugs be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must establish the existence of the illicit drugs. It must also
prove that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been maintained because
the confiscated drug, being the proof involved, is not promptly
recognizable through sight and can be tampered or replaced.

Same; Same; Chain of Custody; To establish that the illicit drugs

scrutinized and presented in court were the very same ones confiscated
from the accused, the prosecution should offer testimonies relating to its
chain of custody.—To establish that the illicit drugs scrutinized and
presented in court were the very same ones confiscated from the accused,
the prosecution should offer testimonies relating to its chain of custody.
Chain of custody is defined as: [T]he duly recorded authorized movements
and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and
custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person
who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use
in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

Same; Same; Same; The arresting officers’ noncompliance with

Section 21 is not fatal, provided, that there is a justifiable reason for their
deviation and that the evidentiary worth of the seized drugs or articles was
preserved.—The arresting officers’ noncompliance with Section 21 is not
fatal, provided, that there is a justifiable reason for their deviation and that
the evidentiary worth of the seized drugs or articles was preserved.
Nonconformity with the mandated procedures will not make the arrest of
the accused illegal or the items seized inadmissible as evidence.
What matters most is that the integrity and evidentiary worth of the seized
articles were maintained since these will be used in resolving the guilt or
innocence of the accused.

Same; Same; Buy-bust Operations; The attendance of third-party

witnesses during buy-bust operations and during time of seizures is to
prevent the planting of evidence or frame-up.—The attendance of third-
party witnesses during buy-bust operations and during time of seizures is to
prevent the planting of evidence or frame-up. Even though neither Pangan
nor any of her representatives was present during the marking, inventory,
and photographing, the police officers substantially complied with the rules
as media representatives and barangay officials were present during the
search.

Same; Same; Chain of Custody; Even assuming that the police officers
failed to strictly conform to the procedures provided for under Section 21,
the accused may still be adjudged guilty of the charge provided, that the
chain of custody remains uninterrupted.—Even assuming that the police
officers failed to strictly conform to the procedures provided for under
Section 21, the accused may still be adjudged guilty of the
charge provided, that the chain of custody remains uninterrupted. In this
case, the prosecution was able to establish the necessary links in the chain
of custody from the time the sachets of illicit drugs were confiscated until
they were forwarded to the laboratory for examination and presented as
evidence in court.

Same; Same; Same; Minor deviations from the mandated procedure in

handling the corpus delicti must not absolve a guilty defendant.—The
rationale behind Section 21 is to shield the accused from malicious
assertions of guilt from abusive police officers. However, this provision
cannot be utilized to frustrate legitimate efforts of law enforcers. Minor
deviations from the mandated procedure in handling the corpus
delicti must not absolve a guilty defendant.

Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; It is settled that in

proceedings involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the
testimonies of police officers as prosecution witnesses are given weight for
it is assumed that they have performed their functions in a regular manner.
—It is settled that in proceedings involving violations of the Dangerous
Drugs Act, the testimonies of police officers as prosecution witnesses are
given weight for it is assumed that they have performed their functions in a
regular manner. Thus, this presumption stands except in cases when there
is evidence to the contrary or proof imputing ill motive on their part, which is
wanting in this case. Pangan failed to adduce any evidence which could
overturn the well-entrenched presumption in favor of the police officers.

Criminal Law; Denials; Considering that a denial is self-serving, it

merits no credence in law when uncorroborated by any clear and
persuasive proof.—Pangan’s denial was essentially weak and cannot
overcome the prosecution witnesses’ positive identification of her as the
perpetrator of the charge. Considering that a denial is self-serving, it merits
no credence in law when uncorroborated by any clear and persuasive
proof.

LEONEN, J.:

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, cannot be utilized to
frustrate legitimate efforts of law enforcers.1 Minor deviations from the
mandated procedure in handling the corpus delicti must not absolve a guilty
defendant.2

This Court resolves this appeal3 filed by Emma Bofill Pangan (Pangan)

from the September 21, 2012 Decision4 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 00747, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court ruling5 that she
was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs in violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.6

On April 11, 2003, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas City filed an
Information7 against Pangan for violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No.
9165.8 The accusatory portion of this Information read:

That on or about the 10th day of April, 2003, in the City of Roxas,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her
possession and control 14.16 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
(shabu), a dangerous drug, without being authorized by law to possess the
same.

CONTRARY TO LAW.9

On May 15, 2003, Pangan pleaded not guilty to the charge.10

Trial on the merits commenced.11

The prosecution presented the following witnesses12: PO1 Eleno Carillo

(PO1 Carillo), SPO4 Dionisio Revisa, Jr. (SPO4 Revisa),13 Forensic
Chemist P/Chief Insp. Angela Baldevieso (P/Chief Insp. Baldevieso),
Fastpak Global Express Corporation (Fastpak) employee Louie Culili
(Culili), Barangay Kagawad Virginia Beluso (Barangay Kagawad Beluso),
and P/S Insp14 Leo Batiles (P/S Insp Batiles).15

PO1 Carillo was an Intelligence Operative16 of the Capiz Police Provincial

Office in Camp Teodoro Apil, Roxas City.17 At around 8:00 a.m. of April 10,
2003, he conducted a test-buy operation on Pangan at B&T Merchandising
on Asis Street, Roxas City.18 A police asset had reported that the shop was
owned by Pangan and her live-in partner, Mario Tupaz (Tupaz).19

After PO1 Carillo bought a sachet of shabu worth P1,000.00 from Pangan,

he expressed his interest to buy more drugs.20 Pangan instructed him to
return in the afternoon of that day as more shabu would allegedly be
delivered to her via Fastpak.21

PO1 Carillo went back to the Police Provincial Office to report the
information to P/S Insp. Batiles. P/S Insp. Batiles and PO1 Carillo applied
for a search warrant before Judge Charlito Fantilanan (Judge Fantilanan),
who later issued Search Warrant No. 2003-26.22

P/S Insp. Batiles conducted a briefing with the buy-bust team23 comprised

of PO1 Carillo, SPO4 Revisa, PO2 Escultero, PO1 Etalla,24 PO1
Cordovero, PO1 Bernardez25 and SPO3 Inocentes Liberia, together with
the assigned investigator and recorder.26 PO1 Carillo and PO1 Bernardez
were tasked to ensure that Pangan was in her store and to give the needed
prearranged signal when already warranted.27

At around 4:20 p.m., PO1 Carillo and PO1 Bernardez28 bought soft drinks
at Pangan's store.29 Thereafter, Pangan went out to get a delivery package
from Culili.30 Pangan acknowledged the receipt of the delivery by signing
Waybill No. 200-0000002352-2.31 She then returned to the store and
placed the delivered Fastpak pouch on top of a table.32

PO1 Carillo made the pre-arranged signal, prompting P/S Insp. Batiles to
advance to the area where other members of the buy-bust team
followed.33 P/S Insp. Batiles read the contents of the search warrant to
Pangan.34 Barangay Captain Andrada,35 Barangay Kagawad Beluso,
Barangay Kagawad Cesar Lara (Lara),36 Rey Casumpang of Radio
Mindanao Network (RMN), Nimbe dela Cruz and Ricardo Bulana (Bulana)
of RMN-DYVR also arrived.37
While inside the store, PO1 Carillo and SPO4 Revisa inspected the
Fastpak package on top of the table.38 Pangan suddenly became unruly,
trying to grab the package from PO1 Carillo.39 The police officers brought
Pangan out of the store to continue the search and to prevent Pangan from
harming herself.40

SPO4 Revisa opened the sealed package with a knife.41 He found a Noli
Me Tangere book, the pages of which were intentionally cut42 to serve as
"compartments" for the three (3) big sachets of suspected shabu.43 PO1
Carillo searched the table's drawer where he found another small pack of
suspected illicit drugs, magazines of a 0.45 caliber pistol, ammunition, a
magazine pouch, and a holster.44 Members of the media and barangay
officials were present during the entire course of the search and seizure.45

The confiscated items were turned over to SPO1 Lebria46 for marking.47 He

wrote "EBP-1," "EBP-2," "EBP-3," and "EBP-4" on the four (4) plastic
sachets, which stood for Emma Bofill Pangan.48 He also prepared the
inventory, which was signed by the third-party witnesses, who were present
during the search.49 PO1 Carillo took pictures of the premises and the
seized items.50

The arresting team brought Pangan to the police station.51 The confiscated

articles were recorded in the police blotter.52 P/S Insp. Batiles prepared and
signed the return of service to be presented to the trial court which issued
the search warrant.53 The arresting team then brought the return of service
of the search warrant and the seized items to the court.54

Later, P/S Insp. Batiles wrote a letter to Judge Fantilanan, requesting to

withdraw the four (4) sachets of suspected shabu for laboratory
examination.55 The trial court granted the request causing the items to be
forwarded to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, Camp
Delgado, Iloilo City.56 P/C Insp. Baldevieso issued Chemistry Report No. D-
145, which verified that the seized items tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.57

On the other hand, the defense's witnesses were Pangan; her live-in
partner, Tupaz; her 17-year-old nephew, Ronel Compa (Compa); a tricycle
driver,58 Wilson Villareal (Villareal); and Radio Mindanao Network reporter,
Bulana.59

The defense's narrative was as follows:

Pangan and Compa were operating the store when a tricycle driver named
Nong Nelson came and bought a bottle of soft drink. Thereafter, two (2)
men followed and similarly bought some drinks.60

A delivery man from Fastpak suddenly came with a package for Pangan.
After handing the package to Pangan, the delivery man directed her to sign
the receipt.61 Upon checking the package, Pangan noticed that it was
addressed to a certain "Gemma."62 It is at this point when the two (2) men
allegedly approached Pangan and introduced themselves as police
officers. One (1) of them struggled to possess the package while the other
poked a gun at Compa, instructing him to stay still.63

Pangan continuously struggled to free herself. In the process, she hit a

bottle, which broke into pieces. As the commotion continued, one (1) of the
men instructed Compa to get the handcuffs inside the store. Pangan was
eventually handcuffed and pulled towards the Radio Mindanao Network
vehicle parked about 10 arms' length from the store. The two (2) men who
struggled to detain her then returned to the store to continue the search.64

After 15 minutes, more police arrived at the store to aid in the search. One
(1) of the police officers approached Pangan and told her that her store
was being searched. She was told that her handcuffs would be removed so
that she could sign some papers, which Pangan refused to sign.65

Pangan narrated that she and Compa were brought to the police station. In
the evening of the same day, Tupaz came. Pangan instructed him to go to
her store to check the money she had left in a bag on their bed. When
Tupaz returned, he informed Pangan that her bag was "in disarray" without
the money inside.66 The next day, Pangan caused the incident to be
entered in the police blotter.67

Pangan claimed that the package was sealed when it was delivered. She
asserted that she was already inside the vehicle when the search warrant
was shown to her.68 According to her, the search warrant had an inaccurate
account of its subject as her true and right name was Emma Bofill,
not69 Emma Bofill Pangan,70 and that the name of her store, Imar
Marketing, was not there.71 Pangan insisted that she did not know Jaime
Castro, the indicated sender of the package.72 She asserted that she was
not expecting any delivery that day.73
The Regional Trial Court74 convicted Pangan.75 It found that Pangan
had animus possidendi as she appeared to know the contents of the
Fastpak package she had received.76

It also ruled that Pangan failed to rebut the claim that PO1 Carillo initially
conducted a successful test-buy that led to the application for a search
warrant.77 Considering that Pangan directed PO1 Carillo to return in the
afternoon as more supply would allegedly be delivered to her through
Fastpak, PO1 Carillo knew precisely what to find during the conduct of the
search.78

Furthermore, when Pangan realized that she was dealing with police
officers, she tried to grab the package. The trial court inferred that if she
really knew nothing about its contents, she would not have been concerned
with its possession.79

Contrary to Pangan's assertion that the presumption of regularity could not

work in favor of the arresting team,80 the trial court ruled that the police
officers properly carried out their duties during the search, there being no
proof of any misdeed or irregularity.81 It also ruled that although none of the
prosecution witnesses testified where the seized articles were marked, this
does not automatically mean that the articles were marked elsewhere and
not at the place where the items were confiscated.82 PO1 Carillo, SPO4
Revisa, and Barangay Kagawad Beluso identified the seized illicit drugs in
court as the same ones recovered from Pangan during the implementation
of the warrant. Considering that no evidence was presented to establish
any improper motive on their part, their testimonies deserve full credit.83

The dispositive portion of its Decision read:

WHEREFORE, accused EMMA BOFILL PANGAN is found guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of possession of 14.16 grams84 of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in the afternoon of April 10, 2003 at
Roxas City, Philippines without being authorized by law to possess the
same, defined and penalized by Section 11 sub paragraph (1), Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 and is sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Four Hundred Thousand (₱400,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency,
and the costs of this suit.

She will be credited with the full term of her detention period.
The illegal drugs are ordered confiscated to be turned over to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal.

SO ORDERED.85 (Emphasis in the original)

Pangan appealed the conviction, attesting that the prosecution failed to

prove the identity of the confiscated drugs. Allegedly, the police officers
failed to observe the guidelines provided for under Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165. Neither the marking of the confiscated drugs or the signing of
the inventory receipt was made in her presence.86

The Court of Appeals ruled against the accused.87

It found that failure to strictly conform to the requirements of Section 21 of

Republic Act No. 9165 does not immediately make the seized drugs
inadmissible as evidence,88 provided that the integrity and evidentiary worth
of the seized articles were maintained.89

Furthermore, the Court of Appeals ruled that Pangan's absence during the
marking and inventory was justified as she became "hysterical" after the
search warrant was read to her.90 Hence, the arresting officers needed to
pacify Pangan to prevent her from harming herself and other people.91
>>
The dispositive portion of its Decision provided:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the appeal filed in this

case is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated April 18, 2007 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, of Roxas City in Criminal Case No. C-093-
03 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.92 (Emphasis in the original)

Hence, this appeal was filed before this Court.

On May 20, 2013,93 the Court of Appeals elevated to this Court the records
of this case pursuant to its January 23, 2013 Resolution,94 which gave due
course to Pangan's Notice of Appeal.95

In its July 22, 2013 Resolution,96 this Court noted the records of this case
forwarded by the Court of Appeals. The parties were ordered to file their
respective supplemental briefs, should they have desired, within 30 days
from notice. Both parties manifested that they would no longer file
supplemental briefs.97

For resolution before this Court is whether or not Emma Bofill

Pangan's98 guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the
main issue presented is whether or not the prosecution established an
unbroken chain of custody on the handling of the confiscated illicit drugs.

Pangan wonders how three (3) armed middle-aged police officers allegedly
failed to pacify a 42-year-old woman like her, causing them to lock her up
inside a vehicle during the entire course of the search.99 She questions
whether or not her enforced inability to witness the marking and inventory
of the confiscated items has sufficient justification to allow a deviation from
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.100

Furthermore, Pangan claims that the testimony of Culili cannot prove her
guilt considering that the delivery man has no personal knowledge of the
package's contents.101 She also insists that the trial court erred when it
discredited her nephew's testimony on the ground that he was her
relative.102 Relationship, in itself, does not give rise to assumption of bias or
impair the credibility of witnesses or their statements.103

Pangan underscores the arresting officers' failure to provide any acceptable

reason to deviate from the requirements of Republic Act No. 9165 and its
implementing rules.104 She asserts that the presumption of regularity cannot
work in their favor.105

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General106 presents that all the
elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were present.107 The
prosecution's testimonial, documentary and object evidence amply
established that Pangan was guilty of the charge.108

The Office of the Solicitor General reiterates that non-compliance with

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal provided that there are
justifiable grounds to deviate and the integrity of the chain of custody of the
confiscated articles is maintained.109 Pangan's absence in the marking and
inventory was justifiable since the arresting officers needed to pacify her as
she became frantic and disorderly after the search warrant was read to
her.110
The Office of the Solicitor General further avers that Pangan's mere denial
of the charge and claim of violation of the chain of custody rule cannot be
the bases of her acquittal.111 Pangan's defense of denial is innately weak
and unless corroborated by clear and persuasive evidence, it remains self-
serving and does not merit any credence in law.112

This Court dismisses the appeal and sustains the conviction.

The prosecution presented evidence beyond reasonable doubt to establish

that all the elements of the offense were present and that the accused
committed the offense.

Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 punishes illegal possession of

dangerous drugs as follows:

Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life

imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) 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:

....

(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";

....

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the

penalties shall be graduated as follows:

(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand
pesos (₱400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00), if
the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten
(10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams[.] (Emphasis supplied)

Based on this provision, sufficient evidence to prove the following elements

should be presented:
(1) the actual 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 or consciously possessed the said drug.113 (Citation

omitted)

The prosecution presented evidence that in the morning of April 10, 2003,
PO1 Carillo initially conducted a successful test-buy which served as basis
for the application of a search warrant.114 In the test-buy, Pangan disclosed
to PO1 Carillo that more drugs would be delivered to her via Fastpak in the
afternoon that day.115 Her words were confirmed when indeed, Culili
delivered a Fastpak package to Pangan, which prompted PO1 Carillo and
other members of the buy-bust team to effect the search leading to the
seizure of the illegal drugs.116

Pangan admitted the delivery of the Fastpak package where she signed a

delivery receipt.117 Culili, in response to a subpoena issued against him,
testified for the prosecution and confirmed that he delivered a package to
Pangan.118

Culili added that the package was addressed to "Gemma Bofill."119 He

identified Pangan as a regular customer.120 This claim was expressly
acknowledged121 by the accused herself, when she admitted that prior to
April 10, 2003, she had received other packages from Fastpak addressed
to either her or Tupaz. Culili asserted that he already made prior deliveries
to Pangan and Tupaz in their past residence at SANECRA Subdivision in
Gabuan, Roxas City.122 Culili was definite that it was Pangan who received
the package.123 He personally handed it to her and saw her sign the
corresponding waybill.124 Moreover, Pangan admitted125 that she was the
owner of the store that was made subject of the search warrant.

PO1 Carillo testified that when the barangay officials and media
representatives came, he and SPO4 Revisa had started the
search.126 When SPO4 Revisa opened the sealed package, they found a
book containing three (3) sachets of suspected illicit drugs.127 From the
table's drawer, an additional sachet was also discovered along with other
articles listed in the inventory duly signed by P/S Insp. Batiles and the third-
party witnesses.128 PO1 Carillo's testimony was corroborated by the
statements of SPO4 Revisa in court.129
Barangay Kagawad Beluso testified for the prosecution to confirm that she
saw the search warrant, witnessed its implementation, and signed the
inventory prepared after the search.130 Finally, to prove that the contents of
the four (4) sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu, P/C Insp. Baldevieso testified to have conducted the qualitative and
quantitative131 examination.132 The test result was embodied in Chemistry
Report No. D-145-03, which she and the Regional Chief of the Crime
Laboratory, Police Chief Inspector Rea Abastillas-Villavicencio, duly
signed.133

To evade liability, Pangan offered uncorroborated and self-serving

assertions. She alleged that Culili's delivery of the package cannot prove
her guilt considering that he had no personal knowledge of the package's
contents.134 She also assumes that the trial court discredited Compa's
testimony as he was her relative.135

This Court is not persuaded with Pangan's defense. She was found to have
been in possession of the illicit drugs without authority to do so. Her mere
possession establishes a prima facie proof of knowledge or animus
possidendi enough to convict her as an accused in the absence of any
acceptable reason for its custody.136

The trial judge had the distinct opportunity to examine the witnesses and to
gauge their credibility.137 The trial court was persuaded with the evidence
presented by the prosecution.138 Pangan's culpability of the charge was
sufficiently established.139 This Court does not find either palpable error or
grave abuse of discretion in the trial court's or Court of Appeals' evaluation
of evidence.140 Therefore, their findings will not be overturned on appeal.141

II

In crimes involving dangerous drugs, the State has the burden of proving
not only the elements of the offense but also the corpus delicti of the
charge.142

Prosecutions involving illegal possession of dangerous drugs demand that

the elemental act of possession be proven with moral certainty and not
allowed by law.143 The illicit drugs, itself, comprise the corpus delicti of the
charge and its existence is necessary to obtain a judgment of
conviction.144 Therefore, it is important in these cases that the identity of the
illegal drugs be proven beyond reasonable doubt.145

The prosecution must establish the existence of the illicit drugs.146 It must
also prove that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been maintained
because the confiscated drug, being the proof involved, is not promptly
recognizable through sight and can be tampered or replaced.147

To establish that the illicit drugs scrutinized and presented in court were the
very same ones confiscated from the accused, the prosecution should offer
testimonies relating to its chain of custody.148 Chain of custody is defined
as:

[T]he duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or

controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in
the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary
custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody
were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and
the final disposition.149 (Citation omitted)

This is governed by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165:150

Section 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 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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory
for a qualitative and quantitative examination;

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall

be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued
within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject
item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential
chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a
partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating
therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the
forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be
issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same
within the next twenty-four (24) hours;

(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two
(72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the
PDEA shall within twenty-four (24)hours thereafter proceed with the
destruction or burning of 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 DOJ,
civil society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up
the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such
item/s which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of
lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or
recycled for legitimate purposes: Provider,further, That a representative
sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained;

(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of
destruction or burning of the subject item/s which, together with the
representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to
the court having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the
representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined
by the Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be
allowed to personally observe all of the above proceedings and his/her
presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said
offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due
notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72)
hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question,
the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney's
office to represent the former;

(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the
representative sample/s was presented as evidence in court, the trial
prosecutor shall inform the Board of the final termination of the case and, in
turn, shall request the court for leave to turn over the said representative
sample/s to the PDEA for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-
four (24) hours from receipt of the same[.] (Emphasis supplied)

Compliance with the preconditions provided for under Section 21 cannot be

overstated.151 It excludes the chances that the evidence may be planted,
contaminated, or tampered in any way.152 Thus, as signified by its
mandatory terms, strict conformity to the procedures in handling the seized
articles and drugs is important and the prosecution must prove their
acquiescence in any case.153

Non-conformity equates to failure in proving the identity of the corpus

delicti, which is an important element of the charge involving illegal
possession of illicit drugs.154 Hence, even doing acts which apparently
nears compliance but do not really conform to the requirements do not
suffice.155 By failing to prove an element of the charge, non-conformity with
the law will, therefore, cause the acquittal of the accused.156

This Court had the occasion to discuss the consequences of the arresting
team's failure to comply with Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 in this
Court's recent cases.

In People v. Jaafar,157 the accused was acquitted of the charge for the

illegal sale of 0.0604 grams of shabu, which was seized from him through a
buy-bust operation. While the police officers marked the confiscated items,
the physical inventory was not done in the presence of the accused or any
of the mandated third-party witnesses. Also, no photograph was taken. In
closing, this Court held that non-compliance with the mandatory
preconditions of Section 21 creates doubt on the integrity of the
seized shabu.158

In People v. Saunar,159 accused Delia Saunar was acquitted of the charge

for illegal sale of 0.0526 grams and 0.0509 grams of dangerous drugs. This
Court held that the prosecution failed to strictly conform to the rigorous
standards provided for under Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, causing
serious doubt on the origin and identity of the seized drugs.

In Saunar, the marking and inventory were done only when the team
already reached Camp Simeon Ola and not immediately after
confiscation.1âwphi1 This Court inferred that any of the arresting officers
could have taken custody of the seized drugs during transit, thereby
concluding that there was a high probability that the evidence was
tampered with or altered. While the belated marking and inventory were
done in the presence of third-party witnesses, there was no evidence
showing that the acts were done in the presence of the accused or any of
her representatives. More telling was the fact that none of the third-party
witnesses was presented to testify in court. Furthermore, no photograph
was taken.160

In People v. Sagana,161 photos of the seized items were taken only when

the accused was already in the police station. The belated photograph
taking was not simultaneously done with the marking and inventory, which
was conducted immediately after the items were seized.162 Also, there was
no third-party witness present when the items were seized and
inventoried.163

Accused Sagana was acquitted of the charge for illegal sale of shabu due
to the evident lapses in the chain of custody that cast doubt on the integrity
and identity of the corpus delicti and the arresting team's lack of justifiable
reason to deviate from the mandated procedures.164

While the chain of custody has been a crucial issue which led to acquittals
in drugs cases, this Court has still ruled that non-conformity with the
mandated procedure in handling the seized drugs does not automatically
mean that the seized items' identity was compromised, which necessarily
leads to an acquittal.165 The Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Republic Act No. 9165 provide some flexibility166 with the addition of
a proviso which reads:
Section 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...

(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, 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)

The saving mechanism included in the implementing rules guarantees

that not every case of non-observance will irreversibly prejudice the
prosecution's cause. However, to merit the application of the saving clause,
the prosecution should acknowledge and explain the deviations they
committed. Moreover, the prosecution should also prove that the integrity
and evidentiary worth of the confiscated evidence was maintained.167

In other words, the arresting officers' non-compliance with Section 21

is not fatal, provided that that there is a justifiable reason for their
deviation and that the evidentiary worth of the seized drugs or articles was
preserved. Non-conformity with the mandated procedures will not make the
arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized inadmissible as evidence.
What matters most is that the integrity and evidentiary worth of the seized
articles were maintained since these will be used in resolving the guilt or
innocence of the accused.168

Pangan's main point of contention rests on her absence during the

inventory and marking of the confiscated articles.169
This Court underscores that from the start, Pangan already insisted that
she did not know the contents of the delivery.170 Surprisingly, when she
testified in her defense, she disclosed that when the two (2) men allegedly
"grabbed the package from her,"171 they grappled for its possession for
about two (2) to three (3) minutes.172 Hence, the way she violently reacted
belied her claim of innocence. As emphasized by the trial court, "She
fought tooth and nail for [the] possession of the Fastpak pouch . . . with the
police officer because a revelation of its contents would surely incriminate
her."173

The police officers acknowledged their breach, offering a justifiable reason

why they had to dispense with Pangan's presence during the search,
inventory, and photographing. The police narrated how Pangan became
"uncontrollable."174 This is a fact corroborated by the accused herself when
she testified that she "struggled to free herself [and] she accidentally
swiped a bottle in front of her store that fell and broke into
pieces."175 Therefore, Pangan's aggressive actuations urged the police
officers to lock her up in the vehicle for the search to smoothly proceed.

The attendance of third-party witnesses during buy-bust operations and

during time of seizures is to prevent the planting of evidence or frame-
up.176 Even though neither Pangan nor any of her representatives was
present during the marking, inventory, and photographing, the police
officers substantially complied with the rules as media representatives and
barangay officials were present during the search.177

Barangay Kagawad Beluso, who appeared as one (1) of the witnesses for
the prosecution, confirmed that she was with Barangay Kagawad Lara and
Barangay Captain Andrada during the search. She testified that the police
officers found the sealed Fastpak package on top of Pangan's table, which
was inside the store. She corroborated the testimonies of other prosecution
witnesses narrating that when the Noli Me Tangere book was opened,
three (3) sachets of suspected shabu were concealed between its pages.
She added that the police officers found another sachet of illicit drugs in
Pangan's drawer.178

Barangay Kagawad Beluso also identified in court the Fastpak package,

the Noli Me Tangere book, and the additional small sachet as the articles
she was referring to in her statements. She verified that an inventory of the
items was prepared by the police which she and the other witnesses
signed.179

Even radio reporter Bulana, who testified for the defense, mentioned that
he was one (1) of the witnesses.180 He disclosed that at around 4:00 p.m. of
April 10, 2003, they gathered with the arresting team at Dinggoy Roxas
Civic Center.181 He attested that after seeing the pre-arranged signal from
one (1) of the police officers, they went to Asis Street where he saw PO1
Carillo and PO1 Bernardez enter Pangan's store, trying to grab a "bundle"
from the accused.182 Thereafter, Pangan was "forcefully" brought outside
the store and was eventually handcuffed inside a Radio Mindanao Network
vehicle.183

Furthermore, even assuming that the police officers failed to strictly

conform to the procedures provided for under Section 21, the accused may
still be adjudged guilty of the charge provided that the chain of custody
remains uninterrupted.184

In this case, the prosecution was able to establish the necessary links in
the chain of custody from the time the sachets of illicit drugs were
confiscated until they were forwarded to the laboratory for examination and
presented as evidence in court.

After its seizure, the four (4) plastic sachets were immediately given to
SPO1 Liberia for marking. SPO1 Liberia also prepared the inventory, which
was duly signed by the third-party witnesses present during the search.185

PO1 Carillo took photographs of the search and the confiscated articles.
Thereafter, the seized items were forwarded to the trial court which issued
the warrant.1âwphi1 Upon P/S Insp. Batiles' request, the trial court
released the seized items for laboratory testing. The articles were received
by SPO1 Alberto Espura of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory
in Camp Claudio, Iloilo City. P/C Insp. Baldevieso confirmed through a
chemical analysis that the contents of the sachets yielded positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu as evinced by Chemistry Report
No. D-145.186

The confiscated drugs which were examined in the laboratory were offered
as evidence in the trial court and were identified by PO1 Carillo, Barangay
Kagawad Beluso, and SPO4 Revisa as the same ones seized from Pangan
during the lawful search.187
Apart from Pangan's unsupported claims, no cogent proof was shown to
attest that the seized items were tampered in any way. Based on the
totality of the prosecution's evidence, the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items were never compromised.

The rationale behind Section 21 is to shield the accused from malicious

assertions of guilt from abusive police officers. However, this provision
cannot be utilized to frustrate legitimate efforts of law enforcers. Minor
deviations from the mandated procedure in handling the corpus delicti must
not absolve a guilty defendant.188

III

In a further attempt to evade liability, accused Pangan denies the presence

of the additional sachet of shabu found hidden in her drawer, asserting that
"PO1 Carillo could have planted it there because he has a bad record."189

It is settled that in proceedings involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs

Act, the testimonies of police officers as prosecution witnesses are given
weight for it is assumed that they have perforaied their functions in a
regular manner. Thus, this presumption stands except in cases when there
is evidence to the contrary or proof imputing ill-motive on their part, which is
wanting in this case. Pangan failed to adduce any evidence which could
overturn the well-entrenched presumption in favor of the police officers.190

Pangan's denial was essentially weak and cannot overcome the

prosecution witnesses' positive identification of her as the perpetrator of the
charge. Considering that a denial is self-serving, it merits no credence in
law when uncorroborated by any clear and persuasive proof.191

Therefore, this Court upholds Pangan's guilt for possession of a

considerable amount of 14.16 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu. As correctly imposed by the Regional Trial Court and affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
₱400,000.00 are warranted and are in accordance with law.192

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals

September 21, 2012 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00747 affirming the
Regional Trial Court's conviction of accused-appellant Emma Bofill Pangan
of illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11 of
Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.