Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53036:gr-180693-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:14:46+00:00

Document:
BONIFACIO DOLERA Y TEJADA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
From the evidence for the prosecution, the following version is gathered.
While at the target area, PO2 Labon saw petitioner, at a distance of seven meters, standing near an alley adjoining Bicol Street, scrutinizing a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Labon, who was in civilian clothes, thus alighted from the vehicle, followed by PO1 Penalosa, and approached petitioner.3 After introducing himself as a policeman, PO2 Labon asked petitioner what he was holding, but the latter, who appeared "natulala,"4 did not reply.
At the police station, PO2 Labon and PO1 PeÃ±alosa marked the plastic sachets with their respective initials "RL" and "AP"7 before turning them over to the case investigator. Later in the day, the two plastic sachets including their contents were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The Chemistry Report8 which recorded the result of the laboratory examination showed that each of the sachets contained 0.10 grams of shabu, a dangerous drug.
The parties9 having stipulated that forensic analyst Leonard M. Jabonillo examined the substances and came up with his findings in his Report, his testimony was dispensed with.
The court finds it quite improbable that police officers in broad daylight would just stop and take away with them a person who is doing nothing but standing on the street in front of his house.
The accused was brought to the police station for investigation and when asked if it is true that he has shabu, the answer of the accused: "Wala naman po" does not inspire the confidence that an innocent person, who is 35 years old and married with a baby, would have said.
The Court of Appeals, before which appellant appealed and questioned, among other things, his warrantless arrest, by Decision12 of October 30, 2006, affirmed petitioner's conviction. In brushing aside appellant's questioning of his warrantless arrest, the appellate court held that he had waived the same when he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court.
His motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution13 of November 21, 2007, petitioner filed the present Petition for Review .
The Solicitor General further posits that the prosecution did not have to present the forensic analyst in view of petitioner's stipulation that the two plastic sachets seized from him were found to be positive for shabu.
Finally, the Solicitor General maintains that the seized plastic sachets were properly submitted to the police crime laboratory for testing, and, at all events, petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance by the police officers of their official duties.
It is with respect to the failure of the prosecution to prove the chain of custody of the allegedly seized evidence that the Court departs from the findings of the appellate and lower courts to warrant a reversal of petitioner's conviction.
. . . [I]n case of warrantless seizures such as a buy - bust operation, the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable; however, nothing prevents the apprehending officer/team from immediately conducting the physical inventory and photography of the items at the place where they were seized, as it is more in keeping with the law's intent of preserving their integrity and evidentiary value.
It was turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory sir.
From the foregoing testimony of prosecution witness PO2 Penalosa which was essentially echoed by prosecution witness PO2 Labon, there is no showing how the flow of the custody of the drugs went from the time of the arrest of petitioner and alleged confiscation of the sachets up to the turnover thereof at the police station to the investigator according to PO2 Penalosa, to the desk officer according to PO2 Labon.
Neither is there a showing that the items were inventoried or photographed and marked in the presence of petitioner in accordance with statutory requirements. In fact, where in the police station and at what stage of the investigation was the supposed marking of evidence done were not even indicated.
And there is no indication whether the investigator and the desk officer were one and the same person, and what steps were undertaken to insure the integrity of the evidence.
Notably, the record shows that it was PO1 PeÃ±alosa who delivered the items to the crime laboratory.24 How they were turned over to him by the investigator or desk officer, the prosecution failed to give even a simple indication thereof.
Worse, the two marked plastic sachets were not even presented, hence, not identified in open court by the police officers-witnesses and there is no explanation extant in the record of what happened to them after their laboratory examination.
It is hereby stipulated by the parties that the items allegedly confiscated from the accused were submitted to the crime lab for examination and the findings were put into writing and the same were marked by the prosecution as EXHIBIT B-Request for laboratory examination; EXHIBIT C 'Chemistry Report No. D-765-2003; C-1 Findings; EXHIBIT D - Certification; EXHIBIT E - Specimen A; E-1 marking lmj; E-2 marking RL; EXHIBIT F - Specimen B; F-1 marking lmj; F-2 marking AP and EXHIBIT G - Brown envelope.
In view of this stipulation, the testimony of Engr. Leonard Jabonillo is hereby dispensed with.
the same fails to impress.
The above-quoted stipulation of facts is self-explanatory. What was stipulated was that, among other things, "the items allegedly confiscated" were submitted for laboratory examination.
The Chemistry Report only confirmed the contents of two plastic sachets. Whether they were the same packets allegedly confiscated from petitioner, the prosecution failed to establish as there was yet again an unexplained break in the chain.
That the prosecution offered in evidence the request for laboratory examination, the chemistry report and the certification from the forensic analyst26 has no bearing on the question of whether the specimens submitted for chemical analysis were the same allegedly seized from petitioner. All that these exhibits proved were the existence and authenticity of the request for laboratory examination and the results of said examination, but not the required chain of custody from the time of seizure of the evidence until its presentation in court.
While there is no need to present all persons who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court,27 the prosecution still has to convincingly establish that the chain of custody remained unbroken throughout, and the seized items specifically identified. This the prosecution failed to discharge.
Although petitioner's defense is denial which, standing alone, is inherently weak, the Court has repeatedly stressed that the conviction of an accused must rest on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness of his defense.
The prosecution having failed to overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of petitioner, his acquittal is in order.
A final word. The Court notes the trial court's seemingly haphazard consideration of the circumstances of the case as mirrored in its decision. Its three-paragraph ratio decidendi only discussed the defense evidence and even rendered judgment on the basis of conjectures and suppositions. Noticeably, the decision never alluded to the prosecution evidence, nor even tackled in passing the basis of the penalties it imposed.
WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, petitioner, BONIFACIO T. DOLERA, is ACQUITTED of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City who is ORDERED to cause the immediate release of petitioner, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this Court of action taken within ten days from notice.
2 Transcript of Stenographic Notes, March 17, 2004, pp. 4-5.
3 Id. at 6, 14.
6 TSN, October 27, 2003, pp. 5-6.
8 Records, p. 8; Exhibit "C."
10 TSN, November 25, 2004, pp. 3-7.
11 Records, pp. 65-67; Penned by Judge Jaime Salazar Jr.
12 Rollo, pp. 67-73; Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Japar B. Dimaampao concurring.
18 People v. Timon, 346 Phil. 572, 593 (1997).
19 People v. Nazareno, 329 Phil. 16, 22 (1996).
20 People v. Tiu Won Chua, 453 Phil. 177, 186 (2003).
21 G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619 (2008).
22 G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194.
23 TSN, October 27, 2003, pp.7-8.
25 Vide: Valdez v. People, 170180, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 611; People v. Ong, 476 Phil. 553 (2004); People v. Kimura, 471 Phil. 895 (2004); People v. Pedronan, 452 Phil. 226 (2003) and People v. Casimiro, 432 Phil. 966. (2002).
26 Exhibits "B," "C" and "D," records 6,8, and 10.
27 Vide: People v. Agulay, G.R. No.181747, September 26, 2008 and People v. Zeng Hua Dian G.R. No. 145348, 432 SCRA 25 (2004).
28 People v. Tan, 432 Phil. 171, 197 (2002).
29 People v. Sevilla, 394 Phil. 125, 159 (2000).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.