Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51708:gr-177222-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:51:03+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RANILO DE LA CRUZ Y LIZING, Appellant.
That on or about the 12th day of September 2002, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any lawful authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deliver, distribute, transport or sell to poseur-buyer PO2 Nick Resuello[,] one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram each of white crystalline substance, which were found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, for the amount of P100.00 with Serial No. XY588120, without the corresponding license and prescription, in violation of the above-cited law.
On arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued with the prosecution presenting as witnesses arresting officers PO2 Braulio Peregrino, PO2 Nick Resuello, PO2 Marcelino Boyles, PO2 Allan Drilon, investigator-on-case PO3 Virgilio Bismonte and Forensic Chemist Joseph Perdido.
Finding that the prosecution had proven appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the RTC rendered judgment against him, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordering him to pay a fine of P500,000.00. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the challenged decision was affirmed in toto by the appellate court, after it ruled that the trial court did not commit any reversible error in finding appellant guilty of the offense charged.
A When we were at the office[,] we marked the subject physical evidence and requested for physical examination[,] Ma'am.
A What we put is initial "BP"
A We put a marking BP, Ma'am.
Following the rule that penal laws shall be construed strictly against the government, and liberally in favor of the accused, 30 the apprehending team's omission to observe the procedure outlined by R.A. 9165 in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs significantly impairs the prosecution's case.
Failing to prove entitlement to the application of the proviso, the arresting officers' non-compliance with the procedure laid down by R.A No. 9156 is not excused. This inexcusable non-compliance effectively invalidates their seizure of and custody over the seized drugs, thus, compromising the identity and integrity of the same. We resolve the doubt in the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti in favor of appellant 32 as every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.33 Considering that the prosecution failed to present the required quantum of evidence, appellant's acquittal is in order.
Anent the argument that the buy-bust operation was conducted without the assistance or consent of PDEA, in violation of Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165, it must be pointed out that the second paragraph of the same provision states that the transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices into PDEA shall take effect within eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of the law which was on 4 July 2002.35 In view of the fact that the buy-bust operation was conducted on 12 September 2002, it is excusable that the same was not done in coordination with PDEA.
All told, the totality of the evidence presented in the instant case does not support appellant's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense. Following the constitutional mandate, when the guilt of the appellant has not been proven with moral certainty, as in this case, the presumption of innocence prevails and his exoneration should be granted as a matter of right.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 14 June 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 211 in Criminal Case No. MC02-5912-D is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant RANILO DELA CRUZ y LIZING is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt and ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful case.
1 Rollo, pp. 4-16. Penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, and concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Lucas P. Bersamin.
2 CA rollo, pp. 20-28. Presided by Judge Paulita B. Acosta-Villarante.
6 TSN, 2 June 2003, p. 10.
7 TSN, 10 March 2003, pp. 2-5.
8 TSN, 2 June 2003, pp. 5-6.
9 TSN, 10 March 2003, pp. 5-8; 2 June 2003, p. 7.
10 TSN, 2 June 2003, p. 9.
11 TSN, 2 June 2003, p. 11; 31 March 2003, p.2.
12 TSN, 31 March 2003, pp. 2-3; 2 June 2003, p. 3.
13 TSN, 4 August 2003, p. 8.
14 TSN, 27 August 2003, p. 1.
15 TSN, 27 January 2003, pp. 4-5.
16 TSN, 13 October 2003, pp. 3 - 6; 3 November 2003, p. 4-6.
17 TSN, 3 November 2003, p. 6.
18 TSN, 4 February 2004, pp. 3-9.
20 SEC. 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby abolished; however they shall continue with the performance of their task as detail service with the PDEA, subject to screening, until such time that the organizational structure of the Agency is fully operational and the number of graduates of the PDEA Academy is sufficient to do the task themselves: Provided, That such personnel who are affected shall have the option of either being integrated into the PDEA or remain with their original mother agencies and shall, thereafter, be immediately reassigned to other units therein by the head of such agencies. Such personnel who are transferred, absorbed and integrated in the PDEA shall be extended appointments to positions similar in rank, salary, and other emoluments and privileges granted to their respective positions in their original mother agencies.
21 CA rollo, p. 56.
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: 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 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).
26 People v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 570, 579.
27 People v. Simbahon, 449 Phil. 74, 81 (2003).
28 TSN, 10 March 2003, pp. 6-7.
29 TSN, 2 June 2003, p. 7.
30 People v. Soriano, 455 Phil. 77 (2003).
31 See Dissenting Opinion of Justice Arturo D. Brion in People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, 26 September 2008.
32 People v. Raquel, 333 Phil. 72 (1996).
33 People v. Simbahon, 449 Phil. 74, 83 (2003).
34 People v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173501, 31 July 2007, 528 SCRA 750; People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 174771, 11 September 2007, 532 SCRA 630; People v. Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 175593, 17 October 2007, 536 SCRA 489.
35 R.A. No. 9165 states in Section 102 thereof that it shall take effect fifteen (15) days upon its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. Said law was published in both The Manila Times and Manila Standard on 19 June 2002.

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