3. People v.

Romy Lim
GR. 231989, Sept 4. 2018
Appeal to the CA’s decision affirming RTC ruling Lim guilty for illegal possession and sale of shabu
Facts:

 An Information dated October 21, 2010, Lim was charged with illegal possession of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu)
 That on or about October 19, 2010, at more or less 10:00 o'clock in the evening, at Cagayan
de Oro City, Philippines, xxx Methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a
dangerous drug, with a total weight of 0.02 gram, accused well-knowing that the substance
recovered from his possession is a dangerous drug.
 Contrary to, and in violation of, Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
 On even date, Lim, together with his stepson, Eldie Gorres y Nave (Gorres), was also indicted
for illegal sale of shabu,
 That on or about October 19, 2010, at more or less 10:00 o'clock in the evening, at Cagayan
de Oro City, Philippines, xxx Methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a
dangerous drug, with a total weight of 0.02 gram, accused knowing the same to be a
dangerous drug, in consideration of Five Hundred Pesos (Php500.00) consisting of one piece
five hundred peso bill, with Serial No. FZ386932, which was previously marked and recorded
for the purpose of the buy-bust operation.
 Contrary to Section 5, Paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
 In their arraignment, Lim and Gorres pleaded not guilty. They were detained in the city jail
during the joint trial of the cases.
 The prosecution presented Intelligence Officer (IO) 1 Albert Orellan, IO1 Nestle Carin, IO2
Vincent Orcales, and Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Charity Caceres. Aside from both accused,
Rubenia Gorres testified for the defense.
PROSECUTION’s version
 'Around 8:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, IO1 Orellan and his teammates were at Regional
Office X of 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 IOl Carin were assigned as the team leader,
the arresting officer/back-up/evidence custodian, and the poseur-buyer, respectively.
 The team prepared a P500.00 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 and arrived in the target area at
10:00 p.m., more or less. IO1 Carin and the CI alighted from 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.
 IO1 Carin and the CI turned at the comer and stopped in front of a house.
 The CI knocked at the door and uttered, "ayo, nang 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.
IOl 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 P500.00 bill, the plastic box with the plastic sachet of white
substance, and a disposable lighter. IOl 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 (PO2) 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-196 and 197-2010. 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’s version

 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 ruled guilty verdict on Lim for illegal possession and sale of shabu and acquitted Gorres for lack
of sufficient evidence linking him as a conspirator.

 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 and no reason to disbelieve in the absence of an iota of malice, ill-will, revenge or
resentment preceding and pervading the arrest of Lim.
 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.
 as Gorres is concerned, the RTC opined that the evidence presented were not strong enough
to support the claim that there was conspiracy between him and Lim because it was
insufficiently shown that he knew what the box contained.
CA affirmed the RTC Decision
ISSUE: Whether Lim is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as to make him liable for illegal
possession and sale of shabu
Ruling: No, since it violates the chain of custody and

 At the time of the commission of the crimes, the law applicable is R.A. No. 9165. Section 1(b)
of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements the law,
 defines chain of custody as- 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.
 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.13 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.
 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.
 Further, Seizure and marking of the illegal drug as well as the turnover by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer should be followed
 Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 states:
Sec. 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:
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[.]19
 Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations(IRR) of R.A. No. 9165
 In this case, here, IO1 Orellan took into custody the P500.00 bill, the plastic box with the
plastic sachet of white substance, and a disposable lighter. IO1 Carin also turned over to him
the plastic sachet that she bought from Lim. While in the house, IO1 Orellan marked the two
 plastic sachets. IO1 Orellan testified that he immediately conducted the marking and physical
inventory of the two sachets of shabu.27 To ensure that they were not interchanged, he
separately marked the item sold by Lim to IO1 Carin and the one that he recovered from his
possession upon body search as BB AEO 10-19-10 and AEO-RI 10-19-10, respectively, with
both bearing his initial/signature.
 Evident, however, is the absence of an elected public official and representatives of the DOJ
and the media to witness the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items. In fact,
their signatures do not appear in the Inventory Receipt.
 The Court stressed in People v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro: The prosecution bears the burden
of proving a valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such
a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any
perceived deviations from the requirements of law. Its failure to follow the mandated
procedure must be adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with
the rules on evidence. It should take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers
do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn
affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the
seized items. Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs
seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of
evidence.
 It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical
inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such
as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their
safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an
immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf;
(3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be
apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and
an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being
charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug
operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from
obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.
 In this case, IO1 Orellan testified that no members of the media and barangay officials arrived
at the crime scene because it was late at night and it was raining, making it unsafe for them
to wait at Lim's house.35 IO2 Orcales similarly declared that the inventory was made in the
PDEA office considering that it was late in the evening and there were no available media
representative and barangay officials despite their effort to contact them.36 He admitted that
there are times when they do not inform the barangay officials prior to their operation as
they. might leak the confidential information.
 Hence, We are of the view that these justifications are unacceptable as there was no genuine
and sufficient attempt to comply with the law.
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the February 23, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01280-MIN, which affirmed the September 24, 2013 Decision of
Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2010-1073 and
2010-1074, finding accused-appellant Romy Lim y Miranda guilty of violating Sections 11
and 5, respectively, of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Romy Lim y Miranda is ACQUITTED on reasonable
doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being
lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.