Charlene Joy B.

Quintos
JD – 3
Special Penal Laws

ROMY LIM v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

Prosecution

Around 8:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, IO1 Orellan and his teammates were at Regional Office X of the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Based on a report of a confidential informant (CI) that a
certain "Romy" has been engaged in the sale of prohibited drugs in Zone 7, Cabina, Bonbon, Cagayan de
Oro City, they were directed by their Regional Director, Lt. Col. Edwin Layese, to gather for a buy-bust
operation. During the briefing, IO2 Orcales, IO1 Orellan, and IO1 Carin were assigned as the team leader,
the arresting officer/back-up/evidence custodian, and the poseur-buyer, respectively. The team
prepared a ₱500.00 bill as buy-bust money (with its serial number entered in the PDEA blotter), the
Coordination Form for the nearest police station, and other related documents.

Using their service vehicle, the team left the regional office about15 minutes before 10:00 p.m. and
arrived in the target area at 10:00 p.m., more or less. IOI Carin and the CI alighted froin the vehicle near
the comer leading to the house of "Romy," while IO1 Orellan and the other team members disembarked
a few meters after and positioned themselves in the area to observe. IOI Carin and the CI turned at the
comer and stopped in front of a house. The CI knocked at the door and uttered, "ayo, nong
Romy." Gorres came out and invited them to enter. Inside, Lim was sitting on the sofa while watching
the television. When the CI introduced IO1 Carin as a shabu buyer, Lim nodded and told Gorres to get
one inside the bedroom. Gorres stood up and did as instructed. After he came out, he handed a small
medicine box to Lim, who then took one piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic of shabu and gave it to
IO1 Carin. In turn, IO1 Carin paid him with the buy-bust money.

After examining the plastic sachet, IO1 Carin executed a missed call to IO1 Orellan, which was the pre-
arranged signal. The latter, with the rest of the team members, immediately rushed to Lim's house.
When they arrived, IO1 Carin and the CI were standing near the door. They then entered the house
because the gate was opened. IO1 Orellan declared that they were PDEA agents and informed Lim and
Gorres, who were visibly surprised, of their arrest for selling dangerous drug. They were ordered to put
their hands on their heads and to squat on the floor. IO1 Orellan recited the Miranda rights to them.
Thereafter, IO1 Orellan conducted a body search on both. When he frisked Lim, no deadly weapon was
found, but something was bulging in his pocket. IO1 Orellan ordered him to pull it out. Inside the pocket
were the buy-bust money and a transparent rectangular plastic box about 3x4 inches in size. They could
see that it contained a plastic sachet of a white substance. As for Gorres, no weapon or illegal drug was
seized.

IO1 Orellan took into custody the ₱500.00 bill, the plastic box with the plastic sachet of white substance,
and a disposable lighter. 101 Carin turned over to him the plastic sachet that she bought from Lim.
While in the house, IO1 Orellan marked the two plastic sachets. Despite exerting efforts to secure the
attendance of the representative from the media and barangay officials, nobody arrived to witness the
inventory-taking.
The buy-bust team brought Lim and Gorres to the PDEA Regional Office, with IO1 Orellan in possession
of the seized items. Upon arrival, they "booked" the two accused and prepared the letters requesting for
the laboratory examination on the drug evidence and for the drug test on the arrested suspects as well
as the documents for the filing of the case. Likewise, IO1 Orellan made the Inventory Receipt of the
confiscated items. It was not signed by Lim and Gorres. Also, there was no signature of an elected public
official and the representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media as witnesses. Pictures
of both accused and the evidence seized were taken.

The day after, IO1 Orellan and IO1 Carin delivered both accused and the drug specimens to Regional
Crime Laboratory Office 10. IO1 Orellan was in possession of the sachets of shabu from the regional
office to the crime lab. PSI Caceres, who was a Forensic Chemist, and Police Officer
2 (P02) Bajas7 personally received the letter-requests and the two pieces of heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PSI Caceres got urine samples from Lim and Gorres
and conducted screening and confirmatory tests on them. Based on her examination, only Lim was
found positive for the presence of shabu. The result was shown in Chemistry Report No. DTCRIM-I96 and
I97-2010. With respect to the two sachets of white crystalline substance, both were found to be positive
of shabu after a chromatographic examination was conducted by PSI Caceres. Her findings were
reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-228-2010. PSI Caceres, likewise, put her own marking on the
cellophane containing the two sachets of shabu. After that, she gave them to the evidence custodian. As
to the buy-bust money, the arresting team turned it over to the fiscal's office during the inquest.

Defense

 Around 10:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, Lim and Gorres were in their house in Cabina, Bonbon,
Cagayan de Oro City. Lim was sleeping in the bedroom, while Gorres was watching the television. When
the latter heard that somebody jumped over their gate, he stood up to verify. Before he could reach the
door, however, it was already forced opened by the repeated pulling and kicking of men in civilian
clothing. They entered the house, pointed their firearms at him, instructed him to keep still, boxed his
chest, slapped his ears, and handcuffed him. They inquired on where the shabu was, but he invoked his
innocence. When they asked the whereabouts of "Romy," he answered that he was sleeping inside the
bedroom. So the men went there and kicked the door open. Lim was then surprised as a gun was
pointed at his head. He questioned them on what was it all about, but he was told to keep quiet. The
men let him and Gorres sit on a bench. Lim was apprised of his Miranda rights. Thereafter, the two were
brought to the PDEA Regional Office and the crime laboratory. During the inquest proceedings, Lim
admitted, albeit without the assistance of a counsel, ownership of the two sachets of shabu because he
was afraid that the police would imprison him. Like Gorres, he was not involved in drugs at the time of
his arrest. Unlike him, however, he was previously arrested by the PDEA agents but was acquitted in the
case. Both Lim and Gorres acknowledged that they did not have any quarrel with the PDEA agents and
that neither do they have grudges against them or vice-versa.

Rubenia, Lim's live-in partner and the mother of Gorres, was at her sister's house in Pita, Pasil,
Kauswagan the night when the arrests were made. The following day, she returned home and noticed
that the door was opened and its lock was destroyed. She took pictures of the damage and offered the
same as exhibits for the defense, which the court admitted as part of her testimony.

RTC Ruling
After trial, the RTC handed a guilty verdict on Lim for illegal possession and sale of shabu  gorres was
aquitted.

With regard to the illegal possession of a sachet of shabu, the RTC held that the weight of evidence
favors the positive testimony of IO1 Orellan over the feeble and uncorroborated denial of Lim. As to the
sale of shabu, it ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the identity of the buyer, the seller, the
money paid to the seller, and the delivery of the shabu. The testimony of IO1 Carin was viewed as
simple, straightforward and without any hesitation or prevarication as she detailed in a credible manner
the buy-bust transaction that occurred. Between the two conflicting versions that are poles apart, the
RTC found the prosecution evidence worthy of credence

On the chain of custody of evidence, it was accepted with moral certainty that the PDEA operatives were
able to preserve the integrity and probative value of the seized items.

CA Ruling

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. It agreed with the finding of the trial court that the
prosecution adequately established all the elements of illegal sale of a dangerous drug as the collective
evidence presented during the trial showed that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted.

The CA was unconvinced with Lims contention that the prosecution failed to prove the identity and
integrity of the seized prohibited drugs. For the appellate court, it was able to demonstrate that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs were not compromised. The witnesses for the
prosecution were able to testify on every link in the chain of custody, anent Lim’s defense of denial and
frame-up, the CA did not appreciate the same due to lack of clear and convincing evidence that the
police officers were inspired by an improper motive. Instead the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty was applied.

Essentially, Lim maintains that the case records are bereft of evidence showing that the buy-bust team
followed the procedure mandated in Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

Prosecution contends that the Procedure was proper.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the procedure mandated in Section 21(1), Art II of R.A. No. 9165 was followed by the
apprehending team?

HELD:

                No. The chain of custody rule is but a variation of the principle that real evidence must be
authenticated prior to its admission into evidence. To establish a chain of custody sufficient to make
evidence admissible, the proponent needs only to prove a rational basis from which to conclude that the
evidence is what the party claims it to be. In other words, in a criminal case, the prosecution must offer
sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably believe that an item still is what the
government claims it to be. Specifically in the prosecution of illegal drugs, the well-established federal
evidentiary rule in the United States is that when the evidence is not readily identifiable and is
susceptible to alteration by tampering or contamination, courts require a more stringent foundation
entailing a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the
original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.

Thus, the links in the chain of custody that must be established are: (1) the seizure and marking,
if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the
turnover of the seized illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the
turnover of the illegal drug by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and ( 4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the
court.

                It bears emphasis that the rule that strict adherence to the mandatory requirements of Section
21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR may be excused as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary  value of the confiscated items are properly preserved applies not just on arrest and/or
seizure by reason of a legitimate buy-bust operation but also on those lawfully  made in air or sea port,
detention cell or national penitentiary, checkpoint, moving vehicle, local or international
package/parcel/mail, or those by virtue of a consented search, stop and frisk (Terry search), search
incident to a lawful arrest, or application of plain view doctrine where time is of the essence and the
arrest and/or seizure is/are not planned, arranged or scheduled in advance.

                The Supreme Court also ruled that so as to “weed out early on from the courts’ already
congested docket any orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases,” the following should be
enforced as a mandatory policy in connection with arrests and seizures related to illegal drugs:

1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance
with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of RA 9165(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), and
its Implementing Rules and Regulations (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/affidavits, the

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.