PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

versus ARNEL ZAPATA y CANILAO,

Appellant., G.R. No.184054, 2011 Oct 19,
2nd Division
DECISION

BRION, J.:

We decide the appeal, filed by Arnel Zapata y Canilao (appellant), from the
decision[1] and the resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated November
28, 2007 and March 6, 2008, respectively, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02136. The CA
decision affirmed in toto the October 12, 2005 decision[3] of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 41, San Fernando City, finding the appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

In its October 12, 2005 decision, the RTC found the appellant guilty of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC held that
the witnesses for the prosecution were able to prove that a buy-bust operation
indeed took place; and the shabu subject of the sale was brought to, and duly
identified in, court. It found no improper motive on the part of the police officers
to falsely testify against the appellant. The lower court likewise disregarded the
appellant’s claim of frame-up, as this defense can easily be concocted and is a
common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of dangerous
drugs. Accordingly, it ordered the appellant to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment, and to pay a P500,000.00 fine.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. It held that the poseur-buyer
positively identified the appellant as the person who gave him two (2) transparent
plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances in exchange for P300.00. It
added that the plastic sachets were submitted to the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination, and were found to be positive for the
presence of shabu. It likewise held that the defense failed to overcome the
presumption that the police officers regularly performed their official duties. The
CA further ruled that the chain of custody over the seized items was not shown to
have been broken. It also took note of the admission of the appellant’s wife that
the appellant was a “financier of drugs,” as well as the positive result of the drug
test conducted on the appellant.
PAGE 2

Our Ruling

The appellant’s conviction stands.

For a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1)
the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in
court of the corpus delicti of evidence.[4]

The evidence for the prosecution showed the presence of all these elements.
Police Officer (PO)3 John U. Salcedo narrated in detail on how the police
conducted a surveillance on the appellant for two months; and how he and PO1
Edwin Carlos conducted the buy-bust operation. PO3 Salcedo duly and positively
identified the appellant as the person who sold to him two (2) transparent plastic
sachets containing white crystalline substances in exchange for P300.00. The
white crystalline substances contained in the two plastic sachets were later on
confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, per Chemistry
Report No. D-316-2004 issued by the PNP Forensic Chemist, Police Inspector
(P/Insp.) Maria Luisa David. The marked money used in the entrapment operation
was likewise positively identified by the arresting officers as the same one
provided and used in the buy-bust operation. PO1 Carlos corroborated PO3
Salcedo’s testimony on all material points. Significantly, the appellant failed to
produce convincing proof that the prosecution witnesses had any improper or
malicious motive when they testified.

Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, the chain of custody over the seized
prohibited drugs was shown not to have been broken. The evidence shows that
after PO3 Salcedo received the two plastic sachets from the appellant, PO3
Salcedo and PO1 Carlos brought the appellant and the confiscated items to the
police station. There, PO3 Salcedo immediately marked the two plastic sachets
with “JUS 1” and “JUS 2,” respectively.[5] PO3 Salcedo, thereafter, turned over
the seized items to Senior Police Officer 3 Danilo Fernandez who, in turn, made
the appropriate requests for the laboratory examination of the seized items and
for the drug test on the appellant. On the same day, PO1 Ronwald Basa brought
the plastic sachets and the appellant’s urine sample to the PNP Crime Laboratory,
where a certain SPO1 Sales received and immediately forwarded the submitted
specimens to P/Insp. David. The latter then examined the two heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets marked as “JUS 1” and “JUS 2,” and found them to be
positive for the presence of shabu. She likewise examined the appellant’s urine
sample, and concluded that it tested positive for the presence of shabu. When the
prosecution presented the two plastic sachets in court, PO3 Salcedo positively
PAGE 3

identified them to be the same items he seized from the appellant. The
prosecution thus established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized
items from the time they were first seized until they were brought for
examination and presented in court. Clearly, the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the drugs seized from the appellant were duly proven not to have been
compromised.
Finally, we stress that the appellant failed to raise the buy-bust team's alleged
non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 during trial; this
argument cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. At any rate, whatever
minor deviations there might have been is not fatal, as failure to strictly comply
with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 will not necessarily render the items
confiscated from an accused inadmissible; what is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as these
are the evidence critical in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.[6] In the present case, we find sufficient compliance by the police with
the required procedure on the custody and control of the seized items. The
succession of events established by evidence shows that the items seized were
the same items tested, and subsequently identified and testified to in court.

WHEREFORE, the decision and the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated
November 28, 2007 and March 6, 2008, respectively, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
02136 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE *
Associate Justice
PAGE 4

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

* Designated as Acting Member of the Second Division in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez,
per Special Order No. 1114 dated October 3, 2011.

[1] Rollo, pp. 2-19; penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador, and concurred in by
Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon and Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario.

[2] CA rollo, pp. 170-171.

[3] Id. at 79-100.

[4] See People of the Philippines v. Manuel Cruz y Cruz, G.R. No. 187047, June 15, 2011; People
v. Andres, G.R. No. 193184, February 7, 2011, 641 SCRA 602, 608; and People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R.
No. 186418, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 250, 263-264.

[5] See also People v. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 186380, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 510, 520,
where we clarified that “[m]arking upon immediate confiscation” does not exclude the
possibility that marking can be at the police station or office of the apprehending team.

[6] See People v. Campomanes, G.R. No. 187741, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 494, 507; and
People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621, 633-634.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DARWIN RELATO y
AJERO, Accused-Appellant, G.R. No. 173794, 2012 Jan 18, 1st Division)

DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:

Statutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs and related
items are designed to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence to be presented
against the accused. Their observance is the key to the successful prosecution of illegal
possession or illegal sale of prohibited drugs.

Darwin Relato y Ajero is now before the Court in a final plea for exoneration from his conviction
for violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
Policemen had arrested him on August 29, 2002 during a buy-bust operation and the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon had forthwith charged him with the offense on August
30, 2002 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65, in Bulan, Sorsogon as follows:

That on or about the 29th day of August, 2002 at about 11:00 o’clock in the evening, in
Barangay Aquino, Municipality of Bulan, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, sell, dispense and deliver to a PNP asset disguised as poseur-buyer, two (2)
plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride “shabu” weighing 0.0991 gram, for and in
consideration of the sum of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00), the serial number of which was
previously noted, without having been previously authorized by law to sell or deliver the same.

CONTRARY TO LAW.1

Upon pleading not guilty to the information on November 19, 2002,2 Relato was tried.

Version of the Prosecution

At 6:00 pm of August 29, 2002, PO3 Sonny Evasco of the Bulan Police Station received a tip
from his asset to the effect that Relato would be peddling illegal drugs around midnight in
Barangay Aquino, Zone 7, Bulan, Sorsogon. PO3 Evasco immediately reported the tip to SPO1
Elmer Masujer, the chief of the Intelligence Department of the police station. In turn, SPO1
Masujer formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation against Relato consisting of himself,
PO3 Evasco, PO1 Wilfredo Lobrin and SPO2 Adolfo Villaroza. SPO1 Masujer prepared a P500.00
bill to be the buy-bust money by marking the bill with his initials.3

The team waited for the informant to call again. At 10:00 pm, PO3 Evasco finally received the
call from his asset, who confirmed that the proposed transaction would take place beside the
lamp post near the ice plant in Barangay Aquino. With that, the team hastened to the site. PO3
Evasco and SPO2 Villaroya concealed themselves about seven to 10 meters from the lamp post,
while SPO1 Masujer and PO1 Lobrin provided area security from about 10 to 15 meters away
from where PO3 Evasco and SPO2 Villaroya were.

A few minutes later, Relato and a companion (later identified as Pido Paredes) arrived together
on board a motorcycle. Relato alighted to confer with the asset who was the poseur buyer.
After the transaction was completed, PO3 Evasco signaled to the rest of the team, who drew
near and apprehended Relato. Seized from Relato was the marked P500.00 buy-bust bill. The
poseur buyer turned over to PO3 Evasco the two transparent sachets containing crystalline
substances that Relato sold to the poseur buyer. Paredes escaped.4
PAGE 2

SPO1 Masujer marked the two transparent sachets with his own initials “EM” upon returning to
the police station.5

Forensic Chemical Officer Josephine Clemen of the PNP Crime Laboratory in Region V
conducted the laboratory examination on the contents of the two transparent sachets and
found the contents to have a total weight of 0.991 gram. She certified that the contents were
positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.6

Version of the Accused

Relato denied the accusation, and claimed that he had been framed up. His version follows.

At about 11:00 pm of August 29, 2002, Relato and Paredes were proceeding to his
grandfather’s wake in Magallanes, Sorsogon on board his motorcycle, with Paredes driving.
They stopped upon reaching Barangay Aquino to allow Relato to adjust the fuel cock of the
motorcycle. SPO1 Masujer suddenly appeared and put handcuffs on Relato, who resisted. The
three other officers came to SPO1 Masujer’s assistance and subdued Relato. SPO1 Masujer
then seized Relato’s 3310 Nokia cellphone, its charger, and his personal money of P3,500.00 in
P500.00 bills. Relato claimed that the cellphone belonged to Paredes while the cash was a gift
from an in-law. The officers boarded Relato in their jeep and haled him to the police station of
Bulan.

In the station, SPO1 Masujer and PO2 Villaroya required him to remove his pants. He complied.
They then searched his person but did not find anything on him. He then saw SPO1 Masujer
take two sachets from his own wallet and placed them on top of a table. SPO1 Masujer then
told Relato to point to the sachets, and a picture was then taken of him in that pose. In the
meanwhile, Paredes notified his family about his arrest.7

Ruling of the RTC

On August 9, 2004, the RTC convicted Relato, 8 viz:

Prosecution having established by the required quantum of proof and with moral certainty the
CULPABALITY of the herein accused to the crime as charged- HIS CONVICTION HAS BECOME
INEVITABLE.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Darwin Ajero y Relato having been found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Repealing R.A.
No. 6425 and amending R.A. 7659), is hereby sentenced to suffer the indivisible penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT, absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance (Art. 63(2), R.P.C.), with all
the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay the fine of P500,000.00.

All the proceeds of the crime shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to
be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165.

The period of the preventive imprisonment already served by the herein accused shall be
credited in the service of his sentence pursuant to the provision of Art. 29 of the Revised Penal
Code.

SO ORDERED.9
PAGE 3

Ruling of the CA

Relato appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), submitting that:

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONIES OF
THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES

II

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME
CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT

On May 24, 2006, however, the CA affirmed the conviction,10 stating:

In closing, there being no misappreciation of facts, distortion of evidence, and speculative,

arbitrary and unsupported conclusions drawn by the court a quo in support of its judgment of
conviction, We defer to such findings and conclusion. Thus, well- settled is the rule that the
findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court
because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of
the witnesses’ deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the
appellate courts (Lim, Jr. vs. San, 438 SCRA 102).

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the court a quo’s assailed decision
dated 09 August is perforce affirmed in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Issues

Relato argues that the CA should have reversed his conviction for being contrary to the
established facts, and to the pertinent law and jurisprudence.

Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides the procedure to be followed in the seizure and
custody of prohibited drugs, to wit:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. ? The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(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;
PAGE 4

xxx

The provisions of Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of
Republic Act No. 9165 provide:

xxx

(a) The apprehending office/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 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;

xxx

A review of the records establishes that the aforestated procedure laid down by Republic Act
No. 9165 and its IRR was not followed. Several lapses on the part of the buy-bust team are
readily apparent. To start with, no photograph of the seized shabu was taken. Secondly, the
buy-bust team did not immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime and in the
presence of Relato and witnesses. Thirdly, although there was testimony about the marking of
the seized items being made at the police station, the records do not show that the marking
was done in the presence of Relato or his chosen representative. And, fourthly, no
representative of the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official attended the
taking of the physical inventory and to sign the inventory.

Under the foregoing rules, the marking immediately after seizure is the starting point in the
custodial link, because succeeding handlers of the prohibited drugs or related items will use the
markings as reference. It further serves to segregate the marked evidence from the corpus of
all other similar and related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until
they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, “planting,” or
contamination of evidence.11 It is crucial in ensuring the integrity of the chain of custody,
which is defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,12
thus:

b. “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of
each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of
seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody
of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition;

While the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of the IRR provides a saving mechanism to ensure that
not every case of non-compliance irreversibly prejudices the State’s evidence, it is significant to
note that the application of the saving mechanism to a situation is expressly conditioned upon
the State rendering an explanation of the lapse or lapses in the compliance with the
PAGE 5

procedures.13 Here, however, the Prosecution tendered no explanation why the buy-bust team
had failed to mark the seized shabu immediately after the arrest. Nevertheless, even assuming
that marking the shabu at the scene of the crime by the buy-bust team had not been practical
or possible for the buy-bust team to do, the saving mechanism would still not be applicable due
to the lack of a credible showing of any effort undertaken by the buy-bust team to keep the
shabu intact while in transit to the police station.

The procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team underscored the uncertainty about the
identity and integrity of the shabu admitted as evidence against the accused.14 They
highlighted the failure of the Prosecution to establish the chain of custody, by which the
incriminating evidence would have been authenticated. An unavoidable consequence of the
non-establishment of the chain of custody was the serious doubt on whether the shabu
presented as evidence was really the shabu supposedly seized from Relato.

In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride prohibited

under Republic Act No. 9165,15 the State not only carries the heavy burden of proving the
elements of the offense of, but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in
which the State will not discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the
prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain
of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the
prohibited substance presented as evidence in court.16 Any gap renders the case for the State
less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.17
Thus, Relato deserves exculpation, especially as we recall that his defense of frame-up became
plausible in the face of the weakness of the Prosecution’s evidence of guilt.

WHEREFORE, we REVERSE the decision promulgated on May 24, 2006 affirming the decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Bulan, Sorsogon, Branch 65; and ACQUIT accused DARWIN RELATO y
AJERO due to the failure of the State to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ACCORDINGLY, we DIRECT the immediate release from detention of DARWIN RELATO y AJERO,
unless he is detained for some other lawful cause.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to implement this Decision, and to report
his action hereon to this Court within 10 days from receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice
PAGE 6

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

1 Records, p. 1.

2 Id., p. 18.

3 CA rollo, pp. 88-89.

4 Id., pp. 89-90.

5 Id., p. 91.

6 Id., p. 86.

7 CA rollo, pp. 48-49.

8 Id., pp. 98-99.

9 Id., p. 32.

10 Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a Member of the
Court), with Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and Associate Justice Mariflor Punzalan
Castillo concurring.

11 People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 257, 276.

12 Guidelines On The Custody And Disposition Of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled

Precursors And Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment pursuant to Section 21, Article II
of the IRR of RA No. 9165 in relation to Section 81(b), Article IX of RA No. 9165.

13 People v. Sanchez, G. R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194.

14 Id.; citing People v. Robles, G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 647.

15 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

16 People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 356-357.

17 People v. Sanchez, G. R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 221.
 “After a thorough review of the records of this
case we find that the chain of custody of the seized
substance was not broken and that the
prosecution did not fail to identify properly the
drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as
witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia,
the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the
officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the
prosecution. The matter of presentation of
witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to
decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to
how to present its case and it has the right to
choose whom it wishes to present as
witnesses”.[People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804, June 18,
2009, 589 SCRA 625, 647-648; cited in PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VERSUS BENJAMIN
AMANSEC Y DONA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT, G.R. No. 186131,
2011 Dec 14, 1st Division.]
 RESULT IF CHAIN OF CUSTODY IS NOT ESTABLISHED:

“It bears recalling that while the parties stipulated on the existence
of the sachets, they did not stipulate with respect to their ‘source’.
“People v. Sanchez teaches that the testimony of the forensic chemist
which is stipulated upon merely covers the handling of the specimen
at the forensic laboratory and the result of the examination, but not
the manner the specimen was handled before it came to the
possession of the forensic chemist and after it left his possession.
“With crucial portions of the chain of custody not clearly accounted
for, reasonable doubt is created as to the origins of the shabu
presented in court. Lingering doubt exists whether the specimen
seized from appellant was the specimen brought to the crime
laboratory and eventually offered in court as evidence.
“The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties
cannot be availed of in this case to supply the missing links as the
presumption is effectively negated by to the buy-bust team’s failure
to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and to show that the
integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved. As a general rule,
the testimonies of the police officers who apprehended the accused
are accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that
they have performed their duties regularly. But when the
performance of their duties is tainted with failure to comply with the
procedure and guidelines prescribed, the presumption is effectively
destroyed. [citing People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, March 26,
2010, 616 SCRA 652, 669.]

“For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of appellant beyond

reasonable doubt, acquittal is in order”. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Appellee, versus SEVILLANO DELOS REYES y LANTICAN, Appellant.,
G.R. No. 181039, 2011 Jan 31, 3rd Division)