People vs. Badilla

Non-compliance with the physical inventory and photograph requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not void the seizure or render the seized drug inadmissible provided the prosecution proves an unbroken chain of custody and the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti are preserved.

At around 10:15 p.m. on September 6, 2010, PO2 Borban Paras of the Caloocan City police received a call from a concerned citizen that a person was indiscriminately firing a gun in the BMBA Compound, 4th Avenue. PO2 Paras and his team responded. At the reported location, they encountered Enrico Briones Badilla, who was standing in the alley and appeared to be drawing something from his pocket. Believing Badilla might be reaching for a concealed weapon, PO2 Paras approached, identified himself, and held the suspect’s arm. Upon being ordered to bring his hand out, Badilla revealed a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. The sachet was confiscated; Badilla was apprised of his rights, arrested, and subsequently charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

• The Tip and Police Response: On September 6, 2010, at about 10:15 p.m., PO2 Borban Paras received a phone call from a concerned citizen reporting that someone was indiscriminately firing a gun at BMBA Compound, 4th Avenue, Caloocan City. PO2 Paras, together with PO2 Ronquillo, PO3 Baldomero, and PO2 Woo, proceeded to the area and arrived around 10:25 p.m.
• Encounter with Badilla: The officers saw a male person, later identified as accused-appellant Enrico Briones Badilla, standing in an alley that used to be a busy place. Badilla was suspiciously in the act of pulling or drawing something from his pocket. Because of the earlier report of indiscriminate firing and fearing a concealed weapon, PO2 Paras immediately introduced himself as a police officer, held Badilla’s arm, and asked him to bring out his hand. Badilla’s hand emerged holding a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. PO2 Paras confiscated the sachet, informed Badilla of his constitutional rights, and placed him under arrest.
• Marking and Turnover: Badilla and the seized sachet were brought to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) Office. There, PO2 Paras marked the plastic sachet “BP/EBB 07 Sept 2010.” PO2 Paras then turned over the accused and the item to police investigator PO2 Rafael Espadero. PO2 Espadero placed the sachet in a larger plastic sachet which he marked “SAID-SOTG EVIDENCE 07-Sept 2010,” prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination and a request for a drug test on Badilla’s urine sample, both signed by P/Chief Insp. Bartolome Tarnate.
• Laboratory Examination and Custody: PO2 Espadero transmitted the requests and the specimen to the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office, where duty desk officer PO1 Pataweg received and recorded them. In the presence of PO2 Espadero, PO1 Pataweg turned over the requests and the specimen to forensic chemist P/Sr. Insp. Margarita Mamotos-Libres. The white crystalline substance tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) per Physical Science Report No. D-246-10; Badilla’s urine sample likewise tested positive. After examination, P/Sr. Insp. Libres marked the sachet “A” MML, countersigned it, placed it in a brown envelope bearing her initials “MML” and the marking “D-246-10,” deposited the envelope with the evidence custodian, and later retrieved it for presentation in court. The prosecution and defense entered into stipulations that witnesses PO2 Espadero and P/Sr. Insp. Libres could identify the specimen and the documents prepared.
• Defense Version: Badilla testified that he was walking along 4th Avenue around 10:30 p.m. when a police officer who frequented the area called him. As he approached, another officer poked a gun at him; he instinctively shoved the gun away, causing it to fall. He was then arrested, shoved into a police vehicle, and taken to the police station, where he was told he would be charged with a non-bailable offense. He claimed he first saw the plastic sachet of shabu in court, denied the drug test results, and alleged the police demanded ₱20,000 because they knew his father ran a junk shop, but he refused to pay. Badilla did not present any receipt or the medicine he claimed to have bought at a drugstore in Monumento earlier that evening. The trial court gave full credence to the prosecution.

• Legality of the Warrantless Arrest: Whether the warrantless arrest of appellant was valid, and if not, whether the seized shabu should have been excluded from evidence.
• Compliance with the Chain of Custody Rule: Whether the failure to immediately mark the seized drug, to conduct a physical inventory, and to photograph it in the presence of the required witnesses violated Section 21 of R.A. 9165, thereby breaking the chain of custody and casting doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt despite appellant’s denial and allegation of extortion.

• Legality of the Warrantless Arrest: Objection to the legality of the arrest was deemed waived. Appellant failed to move to quash the Information before entering his plea and instead voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction by pleading not guilty and actively participating in trial, including stipulating to the court’s jurisdiction over his person. Even on the merits, the arrest was valid. The two requisites of a valid in flagrante delicto arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 were present: (1) Badilla’s act of pulling something from his pocket, in the context of a fresh report of indiscriminate firing in the very same location, constituted an overt act giving the arresting officer probable cause to believe a crime had been or was about to be committed; and (2) this overt act occurred within PO2 Paras’s plain view. When the officer approached as a precaution, Badilla voluntarily brought out the plastic sachet of shabu, which was thus lawfully seized incident to a valid arrest.
• Compliance with the Chain of Custody Rule: The absence of a physical inventory and photograph and the delayed marking did not render the seizure void or the seized drug inadmissible. While Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165 and its Implementing Rules require immediate inventory and photograph in the presence of specified witnesses, the same provision expressly allows non-compliance under justifiable grounds provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Although the prosecution did not articulate a specific justifiable ground, Badilla’s failure to challenge the custody and safekeeping of the drug before the trial court barred him from raising the issue for the first time on appeal. More fundamentally, the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody. PO2 Paras testified to the seizure and to his marking of the sachet at the police station; PO2 Espadero confirmed receiving the item, re-packaging and marking it, preparing the laboratory request, and personally delivering it to the crime laboratory; PO1 Pataweg and P/Sr. Insp. Libres accounted for receipt, examination, marking, and safekeeping until court presentation. Each link in the chain was identified, and the forensic chemist’s markings tied the tested specimen to the sachet seized from Badilla. This substantial compliance sufficed to prove that the shabu presented in court was the very same substance taken from appellant, with its integrity and evidentiary value preserved.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: All elements of illegal possession were proven: (a) Badilla was found in possession of 7.75 grams of shabu; (b) no authority to possess was shown; and (c) mere possession constituted prima facie evidence of animus possidendi, which Badilla failed to rebut. His bare denial and claim of extortion, like alibi, were viewed with disfavor, as they could not overcome the positive, categorical testimony of the police officers. Badilla likewise failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The trial court’s assessment of credibility, sustained by the appellate court, was accorded great respect.

• Waiver of Objection to Illegal Arrest — Any objection to the legality of an arrest or to the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be raised before arraignment by a motion to quash; failure to do so constitutes a waiver, and the accused is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction.
• In Flagrante Delicto Arrest (Rule 113, Sec. 5(a)) — A warrantless arrest is valid when: (1) the person to be arrested executes an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) the overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Probable cause for such an arrest means an actual belief or reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious person’s belief that a crime has been or is about to be committed.
• Substantial Compliance with the Chain of Custody Rule — The procedure under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, requiring immediate physical inventory and photograph in the presence of the accused and specified witnesses, may be relaxed if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug are properly preserved. Non-compliance does not, by itself, render the seizure illegal or the evidence inadmissible. The most critical factor is the preservation of the identity of the corpus delicti; the prosecution must establish, through testimony about every link, the continuous whereabouts of the seized item from confiscation to presentation in court. Marking at the police station and identification of each handler may amount to substantial compliance.
• Chain of Custody Defined — The “chain of custody” encompasses duly recorded, authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of confiscation, to receipt in the forensic laboratory, safekeeping, and presentation in court. The record must include the identity and signature of every person who held temporary custody, and the dates and times of each transfer.
• Presumption of Regularity in Drug Cases — Law enforcement officers are presumed to have regularly performed their official duties. To rebut this presumption, the accused must present clear and convincing evidence of either improper performance of duty or improper motive. A bare denial or allegation of frame-up is insufficient.
• Prima Facie Evidence of Possession — Mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, sufficient to convict absent a satisfactory explanation.

• “Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.” (Citing Zalameda v. People)
• “As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.” (Citing Mallillin v. People)
• “…failure to strictly comply with Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.”
• “The chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons who handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs… from the time they were seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court.”

• Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 710 (2009) — Followed for the rule that objections to the legality of arrest are waived if not raised before arraignment.
• People v. Pavia, G.R. No. 202687, January 14, 2015 — Followed for the two requisites of a valid in flagrante delicto arrest.
• Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) — Laid down the definitive elements for establishing the chain of custody of seized drugs; applied as the governing standard.
• People v. Padua, 639 Phil. 235 (2010) and People v. Hernandez, 607 Phil. 617 (2009) — Cited for the principle that non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements does not render the seizure void as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are preserved.

• Section 5(a), Rule 113, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Authorizes a peace officer to arrest without a warrant a person who, in the officer’s presence, has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Applied to validate Badilla’s arrest after PO2 Paras observed his suspicious act and discovered the shabu in his possession.
• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Defines the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and prescribes the penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱400,000.00 to ₱500,000.00 for possession of five grams or more but less than ten grams of shabu. Applied to fix Badilla’s penalty.
• Section 21, Article II, R.A. 9165 and its Implementing Rules — Mandates the immediate physical inventory and photograph of seized drugs in the presence of the accused, media, DOJ, and an elected official; contains a proviso that non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not void the seizure provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The absence of an inventory and photograph was excused under the proviso because the chain of custody established the drug’s identity and integrity.
• Section 1(b), Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 — Defines “chain of custody” as the duly recorded, authorized movements of seized drugs from confiscation to presentation in court, including the identity of each custodian. The prosecution’s evidence was measured against this standard and found substantially compliant.

• Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson)
• Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez
• Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes
• Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza)