February 27, 2019

G.R. No. 237349

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
MANUEL BASA, JR., a.k.a. "Jun,", Accused-Appellant

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

For consideration of the Court is the appeal of the Decision  dated September 28, 2017 of the Court
1

of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08164 which affirmed with modification the Decision  dated
2

July 27, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 194, finding Manuel
Basa, Jr., a.k.a. "Jun," guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A, paragraphs (1)
and (2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

In two (2) separate Informations filed on August 19, 2003, Basa was charged with one violation each
of Article 266-A, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the RPC, in relation to R.A. No. 7610, the accusatory
portions of which read:

Criminal Case No. 04-0200

That on or about a date prior to December 25, 2002 in Parañaque City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, actuated by lust, and by taking
advantage of his moral ascendancy, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously insert his
[finger] into the genitalia of [AAA], a xxxxxxxxxx minor, by means of force, threat or intimidation,
against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

Criminal Case No. 04-0201

That on or about a date prior to December 31, 2002 in Parañaque City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, actuated by lust, and by taking
advantage of his moral ascendancy, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of [AAA], a xxxxxxxxxx minor, through force, threat or intimidation, against her will
and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

During arraignment, Basa, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges. Subsequently, trial
on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely: (1) private complainant
AAA;  (2) senior medico officer Dr. Alvin David; (3) AAA's teacher at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
5

Veronica Malapad Francisco; and (4) a representative of the Local Civil Registrar, Josefina
Villorant.  The defense, thereafter, presented the testimonies of: (1) accused Basa; and (2) a certain
6

Alvin Modina.7
AAA testified that Basa raped her on two (2) occasions: the first incident, prior to December 25,
2002; while the second, about a week after the first. Both occasions took place inside the office of
"Ka Eddie," an Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) pastor, located at the second floor of the INC
church xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, at Parañaque City. AAA had been a member of the INC for almost a
year prior to the first incident. Basa, also a member of the INC, had been doing the task of cleaning
the church.

On the first incident, AAA narrated that she went to the INC church at around 9:00 a.m. at the
request of her cousin, BBB,  to check if their attendance card or what they refer to as "tarheta" had
8

been overturned. Under the INC's practice, this signifies the presence of a person during the worship
service. Wearing a skirt and a t-shirt, AAA saw Basa, whom she referred to as "Kuya Jun," cleaning
the first floor of the church, near the area where the attendance cards were placed. Basa told AAA
that he would show her a small fishpond at the back portion of the church. Trusting her Kuya Jun,
AAA went with him. But instead, Basa held her right arm and dragged her to the office of Pastor
Eddie at the second floor and locked the door behind them. The office is usually locked, but since
Basa was in charge of cleaning the church, he had in his possession the key to the door thereof.
There, AAA recounted that Basa began kissing her lips and mashing her breast. He then pulled up
her skirt and, through the side of her underwear, inserted his finger into her private part, causing
AAA to feel pain. Thereafter, Basa removed her skirt and underwear and started kissing her private
part. AAA said that she could not resist because Basa threatened to kill her should she tell anybody
of her ordeal.
9

A week thereafter, the second incident occurred. AAA relayed that between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m.,
she went to the INC church to check the "tarheta." When Basa saw her, he immediately dragged her
again and brought her to Pastor Eddie's office. As before, she could not do anything out of fear for
her life. AAA recalled that apart from the security guards stationed outside the church, no other
persons were inside the place of worship. In the office, Basa kissed her, pulled up her shirt, and
mashed her breast. Afterwards, he removed her skirt and underwear and put his penis out of his
denim pants. He then told her to lie down on the floor and inserted his penis inside her private part,
causing her to feel pain. After the incident, AAA went home and swore never to tell anybody about
what Basa did to her. It was in January 2003, when classes resumed in her school
at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, that she found the courage to tell her teacher, Francisco, about
the ordeal she went through during the vacation. Upon learning this, Francisco called AAA's
grandmother, CCC. Then, when AAA's aunts found out about the incidents, they immediately
reported the same to the National Bureau of Investigation where AAA submitted her Sinumpaang
Salaysay dated January 20, 2003. 10

AAA's testimony was corroborated by her teacher, Francisco, who stated that AAA was an average
student. A week after the 2002 Christmas break, she noticed that AAA was quite withdrawn
compared to her usual behavior. Bothered by what she observed, she asked AAA to stay in the
classroom after class. Francisco recalled that AAA was first reluctant to confide in her but, after a
while, she was able to convince AAA into sharing her harrowing experience. AAA then told her that
her Kuya Jun, a caretaker in the INC church, fondled her twice and forced himself on her. Francisco
added that as AAA was narrating the incident, she was trembling in fear, terribly shaking, and
appeared to have been traumatized. Upon learning of said incident, Francisco immediately relayed
the story to AAA's grandmother. 11

In his defense, Basa denied the accusations against him. He narrated that on December 25, 2002,
AAA was not yet a member of the INC and was still under probation or "sinusubok." Basa contended
that on the alleged first rape incident, he was preparing the stage of the church for its afternoon
program, while on the second rape incident, he was with several other persons preparing for the
New Year's celebration and afternoon prayer. According to Basa, the only possible reason that could
have impelled AAA to file cases against him was because of BBB. He recounted an instance
wherein their "Pangulong Diakono" or Deputy Head Deacon told him to order those persons not
included in the worship service, among them was BBB, to go outside of the church. This incident
angered BBB. In addition, Basa revealed that BBB once admired him, but he turned her down. 12

The defense also presented, as its witness, Alvin Modina, a member of the INC. Modina knew Basa
as a "masiglang kaanib" of their religious segregation, while AAA as one of those being indoctrinated
in their barangay. According to Modina, he was at the INC church from 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on the
alleged first incident when AAA was molested, but he did not notice the presence of AAA or Basa.
He stated that AAA arrived only in the evening when the church was opened for the worship service.
On the alleged second rape incident, Modina testified that he was at the INC church from 9:00 a.m.
until 4:00 p.m. and saw Basa there preparing for the New Year celebration. 13

On July 27, 2015, the RTC rendered its Decision finding Basa guilty of the crime charged, disposing
of the cases as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused MANUEL BASA, a.k.a. "Jun" GUILTY beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime of Rape under the following cases:

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt under Criminal Case No. 04-0200 for the crime of Rape under
Article 266-A (2) in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty ranging from four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum, to ten (10)
years of prision mayor as maximum and to pay private complainant [AAA] the amount of P30,000.00
as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt under Criminal Case No. 04-0201 for the crime of Rape under
Article 266-A (1) in relation to RA 7610 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay private complainant [AAA] the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages and
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

As the accused is a detention prisoner, the period of his detention shall be credited in the period of
his sentence.

SO ORDERED.  (Emphases and italics in the original.)

14

The RTC found that judging on the basis of the testimonies of both the prosecution and the defense
in connection with which documentary pieces of evidence were formally offered, the prosecution
sufficiently established the existence of the elements of the crime charged against Basa. 15

In a Decision dated September 28, 2017, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC Decision in the
following manner:

Anent the damages awarded by the RTC, We find that modification of the amount of damages
awarded is in order. For Criminal Case No. 04-[0200], in addition to the Php30,000.00 award as
moral damages and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages, the amount of Php30,000.00 shall also
be awarded as civil indemnity. On the other hand, for Criminal Case No. 04-[0201], in line with
recent jurisprudence, the amount of exemplary damages shall be modified and increased to
P75,000.00. AAA shall likewise be entitled to civil indemnity of P75,000.00 and moral damages of
P75,000.00.
In addition, all the monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the
date of finality of this decision until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated July 27, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of
Parañaque, Branch 194 in Criminal cases No. 04-0200 and [No.] 04-0201, is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.  (Citations omitted; emphases in the original.)

16

According to the appellate court, there is no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, holding that
AAA's credibility, by well-established precedents, is given great weight and accorded high respect. 17

Now before us, Basa manifested that he is dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief
considering that he had exhaustively discussed the assigned errors in his Appellant's Brief.  The
18

Office of the Solicitor General similarly manifested that it had already discussed its arguments in its
Appellee's Brief. 19

According to Basa, AAA's testimony is too incredible and full of inconsistencies to merit faith and
credence. If she did go through such ordeal, she should have struggled or, at least, shouted for help
considering that there was no mention of any fatal weapon and especially during the time when
Basa was allegedly opening the door to Pastor Eddie's office. Moreover, her behavior after the first
rape incident contradicts her claim of fear because she simply wore back her dress, fixed herself,
and went home. Basa also points out that the report of the medico-legal officer shows "no evident
sign of extragenital injuries and the hymen, intact and its orifice mall as to preclude complete
penetration by an average sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any
genital injury."  Thus, physical evidence belies AAA's claims that he inserted his finger and penis
20

inside her vagina.

After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the
rulings of the RTC and the CA finding him guilty of the acts charged against him. In view of the
circumstances of the instant case, however, a modification of the penalty imposed, the damages
awarded, and the nomenclature of the offense committed is in order.

In Criminal Case No. 04-0200, instead of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (2) of the RPC, in
relation to R.A. No. 7610, Basa should be held liable for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5
(b),  Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
21

In Dimakuta v. People,  the Court held that in instances where the lascivious conduct is covered by
22

the definition under R.A. No. 7610, where the penalty is reclusion temporal medium, and the act is
likewise covered by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph (2) of the RPC, which is
punishable by prisión mayor, the offender should be liable for violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of
R.A. No. 7610, where the law provides for the higher penalty of reclusion temporal medium, if the
offended party is a child victim. But if the victim is at least eighteen (18) years of age, the offender
should be liable under Article 266-A, paragraph (2) of the RPC and not R.A. No. 7610, unless the
victim is at least 18 years old and she is unable to fully take care of herself or protect herself from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
condition, in which case, the offender may still be held liable for sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610.
The reason for the foregoing is that, aside from affording special protection and stronger deterrence
against child abuse, R.A. No. 7610 is a special law which should clearly prevail over R.A. No. 8353,
which is a mere general law amending the RPC. In People v. Chingh,  the Court noted that "it was
23

not the intention of the framers of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the applicability of R.A. No. 7610
to sexual abuses committed to children. Despite the passage of R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still
good law, which must be applied when the victims are children or those 'persons below eighteen
(18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves
from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability
or condition.'"

It is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the lascivious act in Criminal Case No. 04-
0200, AAA was xxxxxxxxxx years old. Thus, based on the above discussion, Section 5 (b) of R.A.
No. 7610 finds application herein. The provision states:

SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for
money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any
adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be
children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon
the following:

xxxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse [or] lascivious conduct with a child exploited
in prostitution or subject[ed] to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the [victim] is under twelve
(12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and
Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as
the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve
(12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period. (Emphases and italics ours.)

To achieve uniformity in designating the proper offense, moreover, the Court, in People v.
Caoili,   prescribed guidelines in case lascivious conduct is committed under the section cited above.
24

On the one hand, when the victim is under 12 years of age at the time the offense was committed,
the offense is designated as Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to
Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610. This finds support in the first proviso in Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610
which requires that "when the [victim] is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph (3), for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended,
the [RPC], for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be[.]" On the other hand, when the victim,
at the time the offense was committed, is aged twelve (12) years or over but under eighteen (18), or
is eighteen (18) or older but unable to fully take care of herself/himself or protect himself/herself from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
condition, the nomenclature of the offense should be Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A.
No. 7610, since the law no longer refers to Article 336 of the RPC, and the perpetrator is prosecuted
solely under R.A. No. 7610. 25

However, before an accused can be held criminally liable for lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b),
Article III of R.A. No. 7610, the Court held in Quimvel v. People  that the requisites for Acts of
26

Lasciviousness, as penalized under Article 336 of the RPC, must be met in addition to the requisites
for sexual abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, namely:

The offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;

That it be done under any of the following circumstances:

Through force, threat, or intimidation;

When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or

When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present;

That said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse;
and

That the offended party is a child, whether male or female, below 18 years of age.

A review of the evidence presented by the prosecution reveals that the elements enumerated above
were sufficiently established. With respect to the first requisite, the prosecution was able to show,
through the credible testimony of AAA, that Basa committed lascivious conduct against her when he
dragged her to the room of Pastor Eddie, pulled up her skirt and, through the side of her underwear,
inserted his finger into her private part, causing her to feel pain. During her direct examination, the
trial court was wholly convinced by AAA's narration of her harrowing experience, to wit:

Q: Going back to the first rape prior to December 25, 2002 at Iglesia ni Kristo
at xxxxxxx[,] Parañaque City when you arrived there at around 9 a.m. coming from
your house to check the taheta of your xxxxxxxxx whether is it overturned what
happen[ed] when you arrived there?
xxxx
A: Nandoon po siya.
xxxx
Q: Who is this "siya" you are referring to?
xxxx
A: Si Ka Jun po.
xxxx
Q: Meaning to say the accused in this case?
xxxx
A: Opo.
xxxx
Q: At that time that you saw him at 9 a.m. prior to December 25, 2002 at the Iglesia ni
Kristo, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Parañaque City what was he doing?
xxxx
A: Naglilinis po.
xxxx
Q: In what place in the Iglesia ni Kristo at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Parañaque City did
you see him there cleaning?
xxxx
A: Malapit po sa taheta.
xxxx
Q: And where is that taheta located, first floor or second floor?
xxxx
A: First floor.
xxxx
Q: And when you saw him there cleaning near the taheta what happen[ed] next?
xxxx
A: Sinabi niya po na may ipapakita daw po siya sa akin.
xxxx
Q: Did he tell you what that something was?
xxxx
A: Opo.
xxxx
Q: What was that something that he told you he will show you?
xxxx
A: Yung palaisdaan po na maliit sa may kapilya; maliit lang po siya.
xxxx
Q: Where was this fishpond or [aquarium?]
xxxx
A: Parang fishpond po na maliit.
xxxx
Q: According to him, where was this fishpond that he wanted to show you located?
xxxx
A: Sa labas po; sa likod po yun ng Iglesia.
xxxx
Q: First floor or second floor?
xxxx
A: First floor po.
xxxx
Q: And what did you say when the accused told you that he wanted to show a fishpond
in the first floor of the Iglesia ni Kristo?
xxxx
A: Sumama [po] ako.
xxxx
Q: Why did you go with him?
xxxx
A: Kasi po may tiwala naman po ako.
xxxx
Q: How much did you trust him at that time?
xxxx
A: Sobra.
xxxx
Q: And when you said "yes" to his proposal to show you this fishpond what happen[ed]
next?
xxxx
A: Hinalikan niya po ako.
xxxx
Q: Where did he kiss you?
xxxx
A: Sa labi po.
xxxx
Q: You said that he drag[ged] you, how forceful was he dragging your right arm?
xxxx
A: Hindi ko na maano[,] basta po hinila niya po ako.
xxxx
Q: Did it hurt, did your right arm hurt when he drag[ged] you?
xxxx
A: Opo.
xxxx
Q: How much did [it] hurt?
xxxx
A: Masakit po.
 xxxx
Q: At that time that he was dragging you at the second floor at the office of Pastor
Eddie did you resist him?
xxxx
A: Hindi po[.]
xxxx
Q: Why?
xxxx
A: Kasi po natatakot po ako sa kanya.
xxxx
Q: Did you ask him why he was dragging you, why are you going to the second floor
when you say that the fishpond is at the first floor?
xxxx
A: Opo.
xxxx
Q: What did he say?
xxxx
A: Wala lang po.
xxxx
Q: And you said a while ago that at the office he kiss[ed] you [on] your lips several
times is that correct at the office of Pastor Eddie?
xxxx
A: Opo, tapas pinaghahawakan po ang dito ko, yung dede ko.
xxxx
Q: How long did he [kiss] you several times and mashed your breast?
xxxx
A: Mga one minute po siguro.
xxxx
Q: At the time that he mashed your breast was his hand outside your clothes or inside
your clothes?
xxxx
A: Nasa loob po.
xxxx
Q: At that time were you wearing any bra?
 xxxx
A: Baby bra po.
xxxx
Q: And his hand was it outside your baby bra or inside your baby bra?
xxxx
A: Nasa loob po.
xxxx
Q: After he kiss[ed] you several times and mashed your breast what happen[ed] next?
xxxx
A: Yung daliri niya po pinasok niya sa ari ko.
xxxx
Q: What part of his finger entered your vagina?
xxxx
A: Hindi ko alam.
xxxx
Q: But you are sure that his finger entered your vagina?
xxxx
A: Opo.
xxxx
Q: By the way at that time were you a virgin?
COURT:
She was xxxxxxxxxxx only years old at that time.
PROS. LEONARDO RODRIGUEZ:
Q: When his finger entered your vagina what did you feel?
xxxx
A: Masakit po.
xxxx
Q: How much it (sic) did it hurt?
xxxx
A: Masakit po.
xxxx
Q: After he inserted his finger inside your vagina what happen[ed] next or what else did
he do to you?
 xxxx
A: Hinubaran po yung panty ko.
xxxx
Q: He removed your panty downwards?
xxxx
A: Opo.
xxxx
Q: And after he removed your panty what happen[ed] next?
xxxx
A: Hinalikan po yung ari ko.
xxxx
Q: How many times did he kiss your vagina?
xxxx
A: Dalawa (2) po.
xxxx
Q: After he kiss[ed] your vagina what happen[ed] next?
xxxx
A: Umuwi na po ako.
xxxx
Q: At that time he was kissing your lips several times; he was mashing your breast; he
inserted his finger inside your vagina and kiss[ed] your vagina did you resist him,
did you resist his advances?
xxxx
A: Hindi po kasi natatakot po ako.
xxxx
Q: Why were you scared?
xxxx
A: Natatakot po ako.
xxxx
Q: Was he threatening you?
xxxx
A: Opo.
xxxx
Q: How did he threaten you?
xxxx
A: Huwag daw po akong magsusumbong.
xxxx
Q: Or else what will happen?
xxxx
A: Papatayin daw po ako. 27

In view of the foregoing, the prosecution duly established the element of intentional touching, either
directly or through clothing, of the genitalia of any person, with intent to abuse or gratify sexual
desire. This act constitutes sexual abuse and lascivious conduct under the definition provided by
Section 2, paragraphs (g) and (h)  of the rules and regulations of R.A. No. 7610, known as the Rules
28

and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases. 1âшphi1

As regards the second requisite that the lascivious conduct be done under the enumerated
circumstances, it has been said that "force and intimidation" are subsumed under "coercion and
influence" and such terms are used almost synonymously. This can be gleaned from Black's Law
Dictionary's definitions of "coercion" as "compulsion; force; duress," of "influence" as "persuasion
carried over to the point of overpowering the will," and of "force" as "constraining power, compulsion;
strength directed to an end"; as well as from jurisprudence which defines "intimidation" as "unlawful
coercion; extortion; duress; putting in fear."  As AAA expressly testified, Basa grabbed her right arm
29

and forcefully dragged her to the office of Pastor Eddie and threatened to kill her should she tell
anybody of what he did to her.

Anent the third requisite, a child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit or any
other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or any influence of any adult, syndicate or group.  In
30

the case of Olivarez v. Court of Appeals,  the Court explained that the phrase "other sexual abuse,"
31

in the above provision. covers not only a child who is abused for profit, but also one who engages in
lascivious conduct through the coercion or intimidation by an adult. In the latter case, there must be
some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended
party's will.  Again, AAA was clearly coerced, in fact dragged, by Basa into going with him to the
32

room of their pastor, where he forcefully inserted his finger into her private part.

Fourth, as previously mentioned, it is undisputed that AAA was only xxxxxxxxxxx years old at the
time of the commission of the offense. Under Section 3 (a) of R.A. No. 7610, "'children' refers to
person[s] below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of
themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or condition[.]"

In view of the presence of all the elements of the crime, Basa should be convicted of Lascivious
Conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. As duly found by the trial court, and
affirmed by the appellate court, the prosecution, through the positive and categorical testimony of
AAA, duly established that Basa succeeded in forceful inserting his finger into her vagina at a time
when she was merely xxxxxxxxxxx years old. He must, therefore, be held liable therefor.

With respect to Criminal Case No. 04-0201, the Court affirms the rulings of the courts below finding
that the prosecution was also able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of the crime
of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1), in relation to R.A. No. 7610. In the instant case, the RTC
aptly found that the prosecution sufficiently established the presence of the elements of rape under
Article 266-A, paragraph (1) (a) of the RPC which provides that rape is committed: "1) By a man who
shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through
force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the
offended pmiy is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present." During the trial, AAA vividly gave a detailed narration
of what transpired a week after the occurrence of the first incident of molestation. In a sincere and
convincing manner, she painstakingly recalled how she was once again dragged into the room of
Pastor Eddie, where Basa kissed her and mashed her breast, and, thereafter, removed her skirt and
underwear in order to insert his penis inside her vagina. She testified on the matter as follows:

Q. After he was touching your breast for a long time, what happened next?
A. Hinubad niya iyong palda at panty ko.
Q. Did he remove it one at a time or simultaneously?
A. Sabay po.
Q. After he removed your skirt and panty simultaneously, what did he do?
A. Inilabas niya iyong ari niya
Q. At that time, what was he wearing when he put out his penis?
A. Nakapantalon po.
Q. Long or short?
A. Long po.
Q. What kind of material, slacks or maong?
A. Maong po.
Q. He put out his penis from his long maong pants, is that correct?
A. Opo.
Q. Did he put it out through the zipper only or did he put down his pants?
A. Zipper lang po.
Q. After he put out his penis, what happened?
A. Inihiga na niya ako.
xxxx
Q. After he made you lie down, what did he do?
A. Sinusubukan niya pong ipasok iyong ari niya sa ari ko.
Q. Was he successful?
A. Hindi po masyado. Pinipilit niya po.
Q. Was he able to insert his penis inside your vagina?
A. Opo.
Q. He was able to insert it and how many times did he insert his penis inside your
vagina?
A. Isa lang po.
Q. How deep did it penetrate your vagina?
A. Medyo ibabaw lang po.
Q. But you felt his penis inside your vagina?
A. Opo.
Q. What did you feel when his penis was inside your vagina?
A. Masakit po.
Q. How long did he insert his penis in your vagina?
A. Medyo matagal po. 33

In a long line of cases, the offended parties of which are young and immature girls, the Court found a
considerable receptivity on the part of the trial courts to lend credence to the testimonies of said
victims. This is in consideration of not only the offended parties' relative vulnerability, but also the
shame and embarrassment to which such a grueling experience as a court trial, where they are
called upon to lay bare what perhaps should be shrouded in secrecy, exposes them to. Indeed, no
woman, much less a child, would willingly submit herself to the rigors, the humiliation and the stigma
attendant upon the prosecution of rape, if she were not motivated by an earnest desire to put the
culprit behind bars. Hence, AAA's testimony is entitled to full faith and credence.
34

It bears stressing that all the arguments raised by Basa in his Appellant's Brief — which the Public
Attorney's Office adopted instead of filing a supplemental appeal brief — have been properly
addressed in full and in detail in the appealed CA decision. For one, AAA's failure to shout or
immediately report the incident does not necessarily belie her claims because as the appellate court
held, a rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by extreme psychological terror that numbs
her into silence and submissiveness. For another, the fact that the medico-legal report shows no
evident sign of injuries is of no moment since laceration of the hymen, even if considered a telling
evidence of sexual assault, is not always essential to establish the consummation of the crime of
rape.   Indeed, when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings
35

are generally binding upon the Court, unless there is a clear showing that they were reached
arbitrarily or it appears from the records that certain facts of weight, substance, or value are
overlooked, misapprehended or misappreciated by the lower court which, if properly considered,
would alter the result of the case. After a circumspect study of the records, the Court sees no
compelling reason to depart from the foregoing principle. 36

As for the penalties and damages for the crimes charged herein, the Court rules as follows. In
Criminal Case No. 04-0200 for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610,
the penalty imposed by the courts below must be modified. Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610
provides that the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. Here, in the absence of mitigating or
aggravating circumstances, the maximum term of the sentence shall be taken from the medium
period thereof.   Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that R.A. No. 7610 is a special law, Basa may
37

still enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. In applying the provisions thereof, the
minimum term shall be taken trom within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, which
is prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.   Thus, Basa shall
38

suffer the indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum,
to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for
violation of the said provision of R.A. No. 7610.   Likewise, and conformably with prevailing
39

jurisprudence,   he is directed to pay AAA the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00
40

as moral damages, P15,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P15,000.00 as fine, pursuant to Section
31 (f), Article XII of R.A. No. 7610, all of which shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full payment.

With respect to Criminal Case No. 04-0201 for rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1), the Court
affirms the penalty imposed and the amount of damages awarded by the courts a quo. Thus, Basa is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary
damages, pursuant to People v. Jugueta,   all of which shall likewise earn interest at the rate of six
41

percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full payment.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The

assailed Decision dated September 28, 2017 of the Court of Appeals, affirming with modification the
Decision dated July 27, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 194, is
likewise AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION:

1. In Criminal Case No. 04-0200, appellant Manuel Basa, Jr. is held guilty of one (1) count of
Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, and is hereby sentenced to
suffer the indek r.r1inate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum,
to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Basa
is likewise ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as moral
damages, P15,000.00 as exemplary damages, and a fine of P15,000.00.

2. In Criminal Case No. 04-0201, Basa is held guilty of one (1) count of rape under Article 266-A,
paragraph (1), and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to
pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and
P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.

All damages awarded shall incur legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality
of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 238516

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
ROGER RODRIGUEZ y MARTINEZ, alias "Roger,", Accused-Appellant

DECISION

GESMUNDO, J.:

This is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the October 27, 2017 Decision  of the Court of
1

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07835. The CA affirmed the August 28, 2015 Decision  of the2

Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203 (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos. 10-669 and 10-
670, finding Roger Rodriguez y Martinez alias "Roger" (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Violation of Sections 5  and 11,  Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the
3 4

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Antecedents

In two Informations, dated October 5, 2010, appellant was charged with illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, in violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The
accusatory portions of which state:

Criminal Case No. 10-669 (Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165)

That on or about the 4th day of October 2010, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines[,] and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and
there willfully and unlawfully have in his possession, custody and control Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.20 gram and 0.220 gram, contained in two (2) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachets, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

Criminal Case No. 10-670 (Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165)

That on or about the 4th day of October 2010, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines[,] and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then
and there willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, deliver and give away to another Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.07 gram, contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

On October 19, 2010, Rodriguez was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty.  Thereafter, trial ensued.
7

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution alleged that on October 3, 2010, an informant told the members of the Station Anti-
Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of the Muntinlupa City Police Station
that appellant was engaged in the illegal sale of drugs. Thereafter, Chief Inspector Domingo Diaz
ordered that a buy-bust team be formed, with Police Officer 2 Mark Sherwin Forastero (PO2
Forastero) as the poseur-buyer and Police Officer 2 Alfredo Andes (PO2 Andes) as his backup. After
the briefing, the team prepared the pre-operation report and coordination form, and the buy-bust
money to be used. 8

On the early morning of October 4, 2010, the informant called and told the police operatives that
appellant was at the Shell Gas Station in Barangay Alabang. Upon arrival at the gas station, the buy-
bust team strategically positioned themselves. Shortly, appellant alighted from a tricycle and
approached the team. The informant then introduced PO2 Forastero to appellant as the interested
buyer of shabu for P500.00. After appellant signified his trust, PO2 Forastero gave him the P500.00
marked money. Appellant then took out of his pocket a transparent plastic sachet containing several
smaller transparent plastic sachets each containing a crystalline substance. He handed one sachet
to PO2 Forastero who subsequently touched his left ear to signal that the drug transaction had been
consummated. 9

PO2 Forastero immediately apprehended appellant and seized the transparent plastic sachet
containing the small sachets and the P500.00 bill from appellant. PO2 Andes assisted PO2
Forastero in arresting appellant and apprised the latter of his constitutional rights. PO2 Forastero
then placed the marking "RR" on the sachet subject of the sale while the two (2) remaining
transparent plastic sachets were marked as "RR-1" and "RR-2"; the open plastic sachet that
contained the two sachets was marked as "RR-3." 10

After marking the items, the buy-bust team brought appellant to the police station because the
inventory report form was in their office. PO2 Forastero retained custody of the confiscated items.
Upon arrival at the police station, the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized  was prepared and
11

barangay officials were called to witness the inventory of the items. However, only a local
government employee named Ely Diang signed as witness on the inventory receipt, with PO2
Forastero and PO2 Andes signing the same. The buy-bust team then took photographs of the
appellant and the confiscated items and prepared the Spot Report and Booking and Information
Sheet.12

PO2 Forastero and PO2 Andes prepared the request for laboratory examination and the specimens,
and submitted them to receiving officer Police Officer 3 Mildred Kamir Kayat (PO3 Kayat) at the
Southern Police District Crime Laboratory. PO3 Kayat then turned over the seized items to Police
Senior Inspector Anamelisa Bacani (PSI Bacani), who conducted a qualitative examination on the
items. After the examination, PSI Bacani prepared Physical Science Report No. D-360-10S  stating
13

that the item subject of the illegal sale weighing 0.070 gram, and the items subject of the illegal
possession weighing 0.20 gram and 0.220 gram, all tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. PSI Bacani then placed a security seal on the tested
items, marked them, and turned them over to the crime laboratory's evidence custodian, Police
Officer 3 Aires Abian (PO3 Abian). PSI Bacani later withdrew the items from PO3 Abian to present
them and her findings in court during the trial.
14

Version of the Defense

Appellant denied the charges against him. He claimed that on October 2, 2010, while riding in a
tricycle going home to Ilaya, Muntinlupa City, the tricycle driver told him that they would refuel at the
Shell Station in Alabang. On the way, a white van cut their path. PO2 Forastero and two other men
alighted from the van. PO2 Forastero pointed a gun at the tricycle driver, while the two men ordered
appellant to alight from the tricycle. Appellant was handcuffed and his head was covered with a shirt.
Thereafter, he was brought to and detained at the Criminal Investigation Division. It was only on
October 4, 2010, that PO2 Forastero took his photograph and made him sign a document which
content was unknown to him. 15

The RTC Ruling

In its decision, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article
II of R.A. No. 9165 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered him to
pay a fine of P500,000.00. It likewise found him guilty of violating Section 11 of the same law, and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum; and ordered him to pay a fine of
P300,000.00. 16

The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs having proved that appellant sold one (1) plastic sachet of shabu during the buy-
bust operation to PO2 Forastero for P500.00. The RTC also ruled that the prosecution satisfactorily
proved that appellant had in his possession two (2) plastic sachets of shabu. It gave weight to PO2
Forastero's testimony positively identifying appellant as the illegal seller and possessor of the
confiscated drugs. The RTC declared that appellant was arrested in a valid buy-bust operation. It
ruled that the police officers substantially complied with the rules on the chain of custody under
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 despite the absence of the necessary witnesses to the inventory. Lastly,
the RTC disregarded appellant's weak defense of denial for lack of merit. 17

Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In its decision, the CA affirmed appellant's conviction. It, however, modified the penalty for the illegal
sale by declaring that appellant was not eligible for parole. The CA ruled that the prosecution
established through testimonial, documentary, and object evidence that appellant sold one (1)
sachet of shabu to PO2 Forastero during a buy-bust operation. It likewise found that appellant
illegally possessed two (2) sachets of drugs.

The CA did not give credence to appellant's self-serving denial of the charges against him because it
presumed that the police officers had performed their duty in a regular manner. Moreover, it declared
that the police officers' noncompliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not fatal despite the
absence of the representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected
public official as witnesses during the inventory. The CA ratiocinated that despite their absence, the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the buy-bust team. 18

Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

WHETHER THE CA CORRECTLY FOUND APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

FOR THE CRIMES OF ILLEGAL SALE AND ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED DRUGS
UNDER R.A. NO. 9165.

On June 4, 2018, the Court issued a Resolution  notifying the parties that they could file their
19

respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within thirty (30) days from notice. On August 13,
2018, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its manifestation in lieu of supplemental brief, adopting
its arguments in its appellee's brief.  On August 3, 2018, appellant filed a manifestation in lieu of
20
supplemental brief, stating that he would adopt his appellant's brief as his supplemental brief, in
substantial compliance with the directives of the Court.21

THE COURT'S RULING

The Court finds the appeal meritorious.

It is a general principle of law that factual findings of the trial court are not disturbed on appeal
unless the court a quo is perceived to have overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted certain
facts or circumstances of weight, which, if properly considered, would have materially affected the
outcome of the case.  In the case at bench, the Court finds that certain facts of substance have
22

been overlooked, which if only addressed and appreciated, would have altered the outcome of the
case.

In a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements must
concur: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was
presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.  On the other hand, under
23

Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the elements of the offense of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs are: (1) the accused is in 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 and consciously
possessed the said drug. 24

For both illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, it is essential that the prosecution
establishes the identity of the seized dangerous drugs in a way that its integrity has been well
preserved from the time of seizure or confiscation from the accused until the time of presentation as
evidence in court.  This chain of custody requirement is necessary to ensure that doubts regarding
25

the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of
the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the
court.  While a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain
26

becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to
alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. 27

Chain of custody means the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs
at each state, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for
examination until it is presented to the court.  The procedure was encapsulated in Sec. 21(1) of R.A.
28

No. 9165, which states:

(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.

The procedural requirement was further expounded in the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 under Sec. 21 (a) as follows:

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 noncompliance 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.

From the foregoing, the apprehending team is required to strictly comply with the procedure outlined
in Section 21, Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165. Their failure to do so shall not render void and
invalid such seizure provided there is justifiable ground for non-compliance, and the integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved. 29

In People v. Dahil, et al.,  the accused were acquitted because the integrity and evidentiary value of
30

the seized drugs were compromised due to the lapses committed by the apprehending officers by
not complying with the chain of custody rule. They failed to observe the proper conduct in the
preservation of the corpus delicti from the marking of the drugs recovered until its presentation to the
court. They also failed to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Sec. 21 of R.A. No.
9165 because the physical inventory of the seized specimens was not immediately conducted after
seizure and confiscation; the identity of the person who prepared the Inventory of Property Seized
could not be ascertained; and the matter of how and where the seized specimens were
photographed was questionable.

In the present case, a review of the records would show that the procedures laid down by R.A No.
9165 and its IRR were not followed, thereby putting doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of
the illicit items allegedly seized from appellant.

The requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A.

No. 9165 were not complied with

First, the inventory of the seized shabu was not immediately conducted after the seizure as it was
only made in the police station. While it is true that Section 21 (a) allows the inventory to be made at
the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in this case, however, the arresting officer failed to provide a satisfactory explanation
why the inventory was prepared at the police station. PO2 Forastero simply declared that they had to
type on the inventory form at their office, thus:

PROS.
ROMAQUIN. JR.:
Now how come you prepared this [inventory in your office and not in the place where
you arrested Roger Rodriguez?
PO2 Forastero:
Because the file is in our computer and we have to type it in our office, sir.31

This flimsy excuse is not acceptable. The apprehending team should be prepared with their
inventory forms even before the buy-bust operation took place. 32

Second, the physical inventory of the seized shabu and the subsequent signing of the certificate of
inventory, as required, were not attended by any representative of the media and the DOJ, or any
elected official.
Appellant's argument that the police officers grossly disregarded the mandates of Sec. 21 of R.A.
No. 9165 and committed serious irregularity when the physical inventory was conducted without the
presence of the representatives enumerated under Sec. 21, is tenable.

As stated, Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates the apprehending team to immediately (1) conduct a
physical inventory; and (2) to photograph the seized and confiscated items in the presence of the
accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof.

The records clearly show that the physical inventory of the seized illegal dangerous drugs was not
witnessed by any representatives of the media and the DOJ or any elected public official who were
supposed to sign the corresponding certificate of inventory. PO2 Forastero admitted on cross-
examination that, indeed, there were no representatives from the media and the DOJ and no elected
official was present during the seizure and the marking of the sachets of shabu, to wit:

Atty. Moldez:
May inventory, sino'ng gumawa ng inventory?

PO2 Forastero:
Kami po, ma'am.

Q: Sinong kami?
A: Ako po, ma'am.

Q: May nakapirma, LGE Ely Diang. Isa ba siyang media representative?

A: Siya po ay ... (interrupted)

Q: Yes or no lang.
A: Hindi po.

Q: Isa ba siyang DOJ representative?

A: Hindi po, ma'am.

Q: Isa ba siyang local government elected official?

A: Hindi po, ma'am, representative po ng local government po.

Q: So hindi siya locally elected official, tama ba?

A: Yes, ma'am. 33

xxxx
Atty. Moldez:
So ibig sabihin ang inventory mo na ginawa ay hindi nagco-comply sa Section 21 ng
Republic Act [No.] 9165 dahil ang kailangang mag-witness doon ay local government
official, DOJ representative at media, tama ba?
PO2 Forastero:
Hindi po sila available nung time na iyun, ma'am, so nagpadala lang po sila ng
representative.

Q: Yes or no lang, Mr. Witness.

A: Yes, ma'am. 34

xxxx

On direct examination, PO2 Forastero stated that the Receipt/Inventory of the Property Seized  was35

signed by Ely Diang (Diang), an employee of the local government unit, thus:

PROS. ROMAQUIN, JR.:

Now there is also a signature here under the heading Witnesses over the name LGE Ely
Diang, please go over the same and tell the Honorable Court whose signature was that?

PO2 Forastero:
It's the signature of an employee of the local government unit who's available and who is
the only one who came. 36

The signing of the Receipt/Inventory of the Property Seized by Diang could not be deemed sufficient
compliance with the requirements of Sec. 21. The enumeration under the aforestated rule is
exclusive. It specifically provides that the inventory and photograph of the confiscated and/or seized
items should be made in the presence of the accused, or the person from whom such items were
confiscated and or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the DOJ, and any elected public official. The presence of these personalities should not be taken
lightly for the law precisely requires such insulating presence as to free the apprehension and
incrimination proceedings of any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity, thus, preserve the integrity and
credibility of the seizure and confiscation of evidence.  As pronounced by the Court in the case
37

of People v. Mendoza: 38

The consequences of the failure of the arresting lawmen to comply with the requirements of Section
21(1), supra, were dire as far as the Prosecution was concerned. Without the insulating presence of
the representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official during
the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination
of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of R.A. No. 6425
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and
credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were evidenced herein of
the corpus delicti, and, thus, adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the
accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken
chain of custody. 39

The prosecution failed to give a

justifiable ground for the
noncompliance with Sec. 21 of R.A.
No. 9165

To stress, the prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for noncompliance with the
procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.  Mere statements of unavailability, absent
40

actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are not acceptable as justified grounds for
noncompliance.41 In People v. Umipang,  the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest
42

efforts were employed by the apprehending officers in contacting the representatives enumerated
under the law; for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an
explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the
circumstances, is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." 43

In the case of People v. Lim,  the apprehending officers therein offered the following explanations for
44

their failure to comply with the procedures laid down in Sec. 21: (1) that no members of the media
and barangay official arrived at the crime scene because it was late at night and it was raining; (2)
that the inventory was made in the PDEA office as it was late in the evening and there were no
available media representative and barangay official despite their effort to contact them; and (3) that
there were times when they hesitate to inform the barangay officials of their operation as they might
leak the confidential information. The Court, however, considered all these justifications
unacceptable as there was no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law.

Similarly, the lone explanation given by PO2 Forastero for the absence of the required witnesses is
unacceptable. Other than PO2 Forastero's testimony that the representatives required by law were
not available at the time the inventory was conducted, no other detail was offered to clarify their
absence. Such flimsy excuse does not suffice as compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Not only
did the apprehending officers fail to explain why the representative from the media, the DOJ and the
elected public official were not available. The prosecution also failed to show that the apprehending
officers exerted earnest effort to secure their presence.

In conclusion, the prosecution patently failed to comply with the requirements of Sec. 21, R.A. No.
9165, because of the improper conduct of the physical inventory. Likewise, the saving clause of the
said provision could not be applied because the prosecution failed to give a justifiable reason for its
noncompliance. Given the procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the identity of the
seized drugs that the prosecution presented as evidence before the court. In effect, the prosecution
failed to fully prove the elements of the crimes charged, creating a reasonable doubt on the criminal
liability of the accused. In view of all the foregoing, there is no recourse but to acquit appellant.

Finally, the Court reiterates the mandatory policy stated in People v. Lim  which needs to be
45

enforced in order to weed out early from the courts' already congested docket any orchestrated or
poorly built-up drug-related cases, to wit:

1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance
with the requirements of Section 21(1) of R. A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.

2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the
justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.

3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits,

the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must
refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of
probable cause.

4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion
to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for
lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court. 46
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision, dated October 27, 2017, of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07835 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-
appellant ROGER RODRIGUEZ y MARTINEZ alias "ROGER" is ACQUITTED of the crimes
charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release,
unless there exist other grounds for his continued detention.

SO ORDERED.