People vs. Zaragoza

A conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia under R.A. No. 9165 requires proof of the corpus delicti through an unbroken chain of custody; however, the integrity of the seized items is presumed preserved absent a showing of bad faith, ill will, or tampering. Where illicit items are found on the person or in a place under the dominion and control of the accused, a presumption of knowledge and animus possidendi arises, and unrebutted, it sustains a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite a bare defense of denial or frame-up.

The Reaction, Arrest and Interdiction Division (RAID) of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received information from a confidential informant about a group selling drugs and using minors as runners in a house on Tagaytay Street, Caloocan City, owned by Rolando Santos. After two weeks of surveillance, during which informants conducted test-buys and video footage was taken by the GMA-7 program Imbestigador, Atty. Fatima Liwalug of the NBI applied for and obtained a search warrant. On 21 August 2009, a team of NBI agents, accompanied by representatives from the Department of Justice, the barangay, and the media, served the warrant at Santos’s house.

• Nature of the Operation: Based on confidential information and a two-week surveillance — including video-recorded test-buys by informants from Santos and the purchase of aluminum foil from his adopted daughter — the NBI RAID, in coordination with the DOJ, barangay officials, and media, obtained Search Warrant No. 141-2009 from the RTC Manila. The warrant authorized the search of Santos’s house on Tagaytay Street for an undetermined amount of shabu.

• Service of the Warrant and Seizures: On 21 August 2009, the NBI team proceeded to the house. Agents Kanapi and Malaluan secured the perimeter. After receiving no response to his knock, SI Elson Saul and the team forced the door open. On the second floor, Saul encountered Santos, identified the team, and showed him the warrant. The search began once the DOJ and barangay representatives arrived. In the living room area, Saul found a baby powder container inside the bedroom that held fourteen used and unused aluminum foil strips, and unused small plastic sachets. When Saul frisked Santos, he recovered from the right pocket of his pants a newsprint wrap containing dried crushed leaves and seeds later confirmed as marijuana. A plastic tube intended for sniffing shabu was also found. From a kitchen trash can, Saul retrieved used transparent sachets.

• Inventory and Marking: Saul conducted the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items at the place of seizure in the presence of Santos, Assistant City Prosecutor Darwin Cañete (DOJ representative), Kagawad Magno Flores (elected public official), and media representative Eugene Lalaan of Imbestigador. The seized items were marked as follows: five disposable lighters as “ELS-21-8-09”; unused aluminum foil as “ELS-21-8-09-01”; used aluminum foil as “ELS-21-8-09-02”; unused small plastic sachets as “ELS-21-8-09-03”; used small plastic sachets as “ELS-21-8-09-04”; improvised plastic pipe as “ELS-21-8-09-05”; and marijuana leaves and seeds as “ELS-21-8-09-06”.

• Turnover and Laboratory Examination: Upon returning to the NBI office, Saul immediately prepared a disposition form and turned over all seized items to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division (FCD). The FCD received the items on 21 August 2009 at 11:05 p.m. A certification dated the same day confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride on the foil strips, used sachets, and plastic tube, and confirmed marijuana for specimen ELS-21-8-09-06. Dangerous Drugs Report Nos. DDM-09-08 and DD-09-47 were issued on 25 August 2009. The defense stipulated to the forensic chemist’s qualifications, the request letter, the receipt of the specimens, the laboratory examination, and the results; the chemist underwent a brief cross-examination but no questions touched on the preservation of the evidence.

• Version of the Defense: Santos and co-accused Loquinario-Flores claimed that NBI agents armed with long firearms suddenly arrived, forced the door open, made Santos lie face down, frisked him, and took ₱140.00. Nothing illegal was found during the search; the NBI team then brought out foil, lighters, and marijuana and photographed Santos with these items. Loquinario-Flores maintained she was only there to assist an elderly person hit by the door. They only learned of the specific charges during the inquest the following day.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Santos argued that the prosecution witnesses gave indecisive, conflicting, and contradictory testimonies, particularly regarding the exact location where the foil strips were found (living room versus bedroom), while the defense evidence was consistent and complementary.

• Admissibility of Seized Items: Santos contended that the search warrant was issued only for an undetermined amount of shabu; the aluminum foil, marijuana, and other items were not described in the warrant, and their discovery did not result from a valid bodily search or fall within the plain view doctrine, rendering them inadmissible.

• Chain of Custody: Santos asserted a significant gap in the chain of custody. There was no explanation of the handling of the seized items from confiscation to laboratory turnover. Because the forensic chemist did not testify on the measures taken to preserve the integrity of the evidence, the identity of the corpus delicti had not been established with moral certainty.

• Credibility and Sufficiency: The People maintained that the testimonies of the NBI agents were straightforward and credible, and that minor inconsistencies on trivial details did not impair their probative value. The bare defense of denial and frame-up could not overcome the positive, affirmative evidence of guilt.

• Admissibility: The prosecution did not directly address this point in the decision, as the issue was raised for the first time on appeal; the evidence was admitted without objection during trial.

• Chain of Custody: The prosecution established all four links: marking at the place of seizure in the presence of the accused and the three required witnesses; immediate turnover of the items to the forensic chemist; laboratory examination yielding positive results; and the stipulation of the parties on the chemist’s findings, coupled with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were so inconsistent and unreliable that the guilt of the accused was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Admissibility of Seized Articles: Whether the objects seized (aluminum foil, marijuana, drug paraphernalia) were admissible in evidence despite the search warrant having been issued solely for shabu, and whether the question could be raised for the first time on appeal.

• Chain of Custody: Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia were preserved through a continuous and unbroken chain of custody, thereby establishing the corpus delicti with moral certainty.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: The appeal was denied on this ground. The alleged inconsistencies in SI Saul’s testimony — whether the foil strips were found in the living room or in the bedroom — pertained to the same second-floor area and were on a trivial matter; his account that marijuana was recovered from Santos’s pocket was consistent and uncontroverted. The settled rule that appellate courts accord great respect to the trial court’s calibration of witness credibility was applied. The defense of frame-up, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.

• Admissibility of Seized Articles: The objection was not entertained. Santos did not question the admissibility of the seized items during the trial; he raised the issue of the search warrant’s scope only on appeal. The well-entrenched rule that issues not raised in the lower court cannot be considered for the first time on appeal was dispositive.

• Chain of Custody: The chain of custody was found intact. The first link — marking — was satisfied because Saul marked the items immediately upon confiscation at the place of seizure in the presence of Santos, the DOJ representative, a barangay kagawad, and a media representative, strictly complying with the procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR. The second and third links — turnover to the investigating officer and to the forensic chemist — were proven by the disposition form and the receipt of the specimens by the FCD on the evening of the same day. The fourth link — presentation in court — was established by the parties’ stipulation on the forensic chemist’s testimony, which covered the request, receipt, examination, and results. The chemist’s reports carried the presumption of regularity and were prima facie evidence of the facts stated. The accused bore the burden to show bad faith or tampering and failed to do so.

• Elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 — (1) The accused is in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. Possession may be actual or constructive; exclusive ownership or control is not necessary — joint dominion or access suffices. Criminal intent is not an element of the malum prohibitum offense, but the prosecution must prove animus possidendi (intent to possess).

• Elements of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 — (1) Possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus, or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law.

• Chain of Custody (Four Links) — The prosecution must establish the following links: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. Marking must be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon confiscation.

• Presumption of Regularity and Integrity of Evidence — The integrity of seized evidence is presumed preserved absent a showing of bad faith, ill will, or tampering. The accused bears the burden of proving that the evidence was meddled with. Entries in official records made by a public officer in the performance of duty are prima facie evidence of the facts stated.

• Presumption of Knowledge and Possession — The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict unless successfully controverted.

• Finality of Factual Findings on Credibility — Factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, as affirmed by the appellate court, are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court absent a showing of arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error.

• “The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict.” — This encapsulates the rule on constructive possession applied to the items found in the house.

• “‘Marking’ is the placing by the apprehending officer of some distinguishing signs with his/her initials and signature on the items seized. … Consistency with the ‘chain of custody’ rule requires that the ‘marking’ of the seized items … should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon confiscation.” — The passage underscores the non-negotiable procedural first link in the chain of custody.

• “The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Accused-appellant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers …” — This defines the burden-shifting dynamic in chain-of-custody challenges.

• People v. Dela Trinidad, 742 Phil. 347 (2014) — Relied upon for the rule that finding illicit drugs in a house raises a presumption of knowledge and possession sufficient for conviction, and that the integrity of evidence is presumed preserved absent bad faith.

• People v. Lagman, 593 Phil. 617 (2008) — Cited for the distinction between actual and constructive possession and the principle that exclusive possession is not required; joint control or access is sufficient.

• People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) — Enumerated the four links in the chain of custody that the prosecution must establish.

• People v. Somoza, 714 Phil. 368 (2013) — Applied for the rule that marking must be done in the presence of the accused and immediately upon confiscation.

• Tionco v. People, 755 Phil. 646 (2015) — Invoked for the procedural bar that objections not raised during trial cannot be entertained on appeal.

• Luy v. People, G.R. No. 200087, 12 October 2016, 805 SCRA 710 — Reaffirmed the binding nature of trial court factual findings on witness credibility upon the Supreme Court.

• Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Defines the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and imposes graduated penalties; applied to the possession of 1.0022 grams of marijuana, warranting the penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years imprisonment and a fine of ₱300,000.00.

• Section 12, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Defines the crime of Illegal Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs; the possession of the seized foil strips, sachets, and plastic tube fit for drug use warranted the penalty of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years imprisonment and a fine of ₱10,000.00.

• Section 21(1), R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations — Prescribe the procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs: the immediate physical inventory and photographing of the seized items in the presence of the accused (or his representative), a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The IRRs saving clause — that non-compliance is not fatal provided the integrity of the evidence is preserved — undergirded the assessment of the search.

• Section 1(b), DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 — Defines “Chain of Custody” as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of confiscation to presentation in court, detailing each transfer and the personnel involved.

• Section 44, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court — Entries in official records made by a public officer in the performance of duty are prima facie evidence of the facts stated; applied to the forensic chemist’s reports.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Lucas P. Bersamin, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Alexander G. Gesmundo, concurred. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno certified the decision.

N/A — The decision was unanimous; no dissenting opinions were registered.