G.R. No. 263341




G.R. No. 263341, February 4, 2025, ♦ Decision, Lopez, [J] ♦ Concurring Opinion, Caguioa, [J] ♦ Dissenting Opinion, Lazaro-Javier, [J] ♦ Dissenting Opinion, Leonen, [J] Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 263341, February 04, 2025 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, vs. ALFREDO ACDANG Y BALANGEN AND ALLAN ACDANG Y BALANGEN, ACCUSED, ALLAN ACDANG Y BALANGEN,** ACCUSED-APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N LOPEZ, J., J.: This Court resolves the Appeal1 filed by Allan Acdang y Balangen (Allan) from the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), convicting Allan of violation of Section 16 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Facts On April 13, 2011, an Information4 was filed before the RTC against Allan and his brother, Alfredo Acdang y Balangen (Alfredo), for cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs. The accusatory portion of the Information reads: That on or about the 11th day of February 2011, at Sitio Mocgao, Barangay Badeo, Municipality of Kibungan, Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding each other without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly cultivate and plant Marijuana plants in the said area of around 5000 square meters more or less, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law. CONTRARY TO LAW.5 Both Allan and Alfredo were arrested on February 11, 2011, but Allan was able to escape from the apprehending officers. The case was initially raffled to Branch 62, RTC, La Trinidad, Benguet and trial proceeded against Alfredo. The RTC eventually issued a Decision6 finding Alfredo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cultivation of dangerous drugs, while it archived the case against Allan considering that he remained at large. On June 29, 2016, Allan voluntarily surrendered at the Kibungan Municipal Police Station.7 On July 11, 2016, Allan entered a plea of not guilty to the charge against him.8 He then filed a Motion to Inhibit9 praying that the presiding judge of Branch 62 inhibit himself from hearing his case. In an Order,10 the RTC granted Allan's Motion, and the case was re-raffled to Branch 63 of the same RTC. After termination of pre-trial,11 trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Atty. Allan D. Ancheta (Atty. Ancheta), from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)-Region 1; (2) Intelligence Officer 1 Nickson Q. Acosta (IOI Acosta), PDEA-Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR); (3) Police Officer II Christian R. Boado (PO2 Boado), Regional Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group-Police Regional Office Cordillera. It also adopted the testimonies given during Alfredo's trial by Atty. Ancheta, IO1 Acosta, and PO2 Boado, as well as those of IO1 Randy M. Tindaan (IO1 Tindaan), formerly of PDEA-CAR, and Police Senior Inspector Rowena F. Canlas (PSINSP Canlas), forensic chemist from the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. IO1 Acosta testified that PDEA-CAR and PDEA Regional Office 1 organized Oplan Farmville 3 to destroy or uproot marijuana plantation sites in the tri-boundaries of La Union, Ilocos Sur, and Benguet Province. The task force was headed by Director Roberto S. Opeña (Dir. Opeña) from PDEA-Regional Office 1. Pursuant to Oplan Farmville 3, Team Omega was created and was instructed to proceed to Kibungan, Benguet.12 IO1 Acosta narrated that he was one of the members of Team Omega, which included Atty. Ancheta, Agent Dexter Asayco (Agent Asayco), PO2 Boado, Senior Police Officer IV Nicolas Luna (SPO4 Luna), SPO4 Takayeng,13 Jaime Fernandez, and PO3 John Garcia.14 After the final briefing on February 9, 2011, Team Omega left Camp Diego Silang and proceeded to Sitio Mocgao via the Santol, La Union route. They arrived at Ramot, Santol, La Union at 12:30 a.m. on February 10, 2011, and walked towards Sitio Mocgao, which took seven hours. Members of Team Omega arrived in Sitio Mocgao at around 7:00 a.m. and they proceeded to the first plantation site.15 IO1 Acosta estimated that the first plantation was around 5,000 square meters and that although there were vegetables planted in some parts of the plantation, most of the plants cultivated there were marijuana. IO1 Acosta asserted that he was familiar with marijuana plants since he had already seen one before. Team Omega waited in the first plantation for 10 minutes, but eventually decided to withdraw since they were unable to find anyone there.16 IO1 Acosta further averred that he and other members of Team Omega returned to the first plantation site at on or about 7:00 a.m. on February 11, 2011, and saw two persons cleaning and uprooting weeds from the marijuana beds. Team Omega proceeded to arrest the two which were later identified as Allan and Alfredo. Agent Asayco arrested Alfredo, while SPO4 Luna was the one who arrested Allan. Both Allan and Alfredo were informed that they were being arrested for cultivating marijuana plants, and PO2 Boado conducted a body search on them. Atty. Ancheta took pictures of the marijuana plants in the first plantation site and uprooted 53 samples of marijuana seedlings which he tied together with a red ribbon. He then attached a piece of masking tape to the bundled marijuana seedlings and wrote his initials on it. The rest of the marijuana plants in the first plantation were burned using dried bamboo and dried leaves and branches.17 IO1 Acosta added that an inventory was conducted on the first plantation site.18 IO1 Acosta and the other members of Team Omega then proceeded to the second marijuana plantation site, which was located 100 meters from the first one. From the second site, he uprooted 11 fully grown marijuana plants, tied the plants with a red ribbon, and attached a piece of masking tape on the bundle and then wrote his initials, signature, and the date "February 11, 2011" on it.19 The remaining plants in the second plantation were burned and an inventory was also conducted in the second plantation site.20 After the plantations were burned, Allan and Alfredo asked Team Omega if they could first be brought to their house so they could pack clothes and provisions. Their request was granted and after 30 minutes of walking, Allan was able to escape. When Team Omega arrived at Alfredo's house, they saw in plain view a hydraulic jack, one marijuana molder, one weighing scale, and a sack of dried marijuana leaves weighing around 1.7 kilograms. Team Omega also confiscated these items. IO1 Acosta marked the seized items in the house with his initials "NQA", the date, and his signature.21 A barangay official was present when IO1 Acosta conducted an inventory of the items seized in Alfredo's house.22 Team Omega, together with Alfredo, left Sitio Mocgao at 2:00 p.m. on February 11, 2011, and arrived at Wallace Air Base in San Fernando City, La Union. They went to PDEA-Regional Office 1 and reported it to Dir. Opeña. He then ordered Team Omega to go to their office at Camp Dangwa to process the necessary documentation and file the appropriate case.23 PO2 Boado corroborated IO1 Acosta's testimony and stated that he participated in Team Omega's operation at Sitio Mocgao. He claimed that most of the plants he saw in the plantations were marijuana. PO2 Boado further testified that he and other members of Team Omega saw two people cleaning and weeding the marijuana beds. PO2 Boado and IO1 Acosta approached the two persons and introduced themselves as a police officer and a PDEA agent. Atty. Ancheta requested SPO4 Luna and Agent Asayco to assist Team Omega in arresting Allan and Alfredo. Allan and Alfredo were informed of the nature of their arrest and constitutional rights. SPO4 Luna and Agent Asayco guarded them, while other members of Team Omega uprooted the marijuana seedlings.24 PO2 Boado saw IO1 Acosta take 53 samples of marijuana seedlings from the first plantation which IO1 Acosta tied with a red ribbon, attached a piece of masking tape to it, and marked. They went to the second plantation site that was located 100 meters away from the first plantation. Here, PO2 Boado saw IO1 Acosta take 11 samples, while the rest of the plants were also uprooted.25 Atty. Ancheta testified that he was present during the briefing in which two marijuana plantations were identified at Barangay Badeo, Kibungan, Benguet, both allegedly owned by Allan and Afredo. Allan and Alfredo were handcuffed when they were arrested. However, the handcuffs were removed when Allan and Afredo requested that they get provisions and clothing from their house. Atty. Ancheta explained that considering the terrain, Allan and Alfredo might stumble or injure themselves if the handcuffs were not removed. Finally, Atty. Ancheta confirmed that the samples taken from the two plantations were in the possession of IO1 Acosta.26 IO1 Tindaan testified that at 8:00 p.m. on February 11, 2011, he received the confiscated items from IO1 Acosta. He counted the pieces, itemized them, and prepared a final inventory.27 The inventory was completed on the same day and a written request for examination together with the items were delivered to PSINSP Canlas.28 PSINSP Canlas testified that on February 11, 2011, she received a written request29 for a laboratory examination, together with the marijuana seedlings, fully-grown marijuana plants, and dried marijuana leaves from IO1 Tindaan. PSINSP Canlas conducted a physical, chemical, and confirmatory test. The initial laboratory report30 was issued on the same day which showed that the first eight specimens submitted were positive for the presence of marijuana. This report was the basis for filing a case before the prosecutor's office. The following day, a final chemistry report31 was issued in which the remaining specimens tested positive for marijuana.32 For its part, the defense presented the following witnesses: (1) Allan; (2) Josephine A. Lentino (Josephine), Allan' sister; and (3) Enero P. Acdang (Enero), Allan's other brother. It also adopted the testimonies of Josephine, Alfredo, and Barangay Chairperson Pedanio Anatel (Brgy. Chairperson Anatel) which they gave during Alfredo's trial. Allan denied the accusation against him. He testified that at 3:00 a.m. on February 11, 2011, he and Enero were asleep at their house when they heard somebody knocking at their door. When he opened the door, he saw his brother Alfredo together with 14 police officers who were wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with guns. Allan and Enero were told to lie face down on the floor and then frisked. However, the police officers did not find anything on them. The police officers decided to stay at their house. At around 4:00 a.m., Allan and Alfredo were brought to two gardens where they were told to uproot and burn the marijuana plants, while the police officers took pictures. They returned to Allan's house where their mother and the barangay chairperson were waiting. Team Omega arrested Alfredo, while Allan stayed behind. Allan stayed at his residence until 2016. Allan surrendered because a barangay kagawad told him to go to Kibungan. Allan also denied owning the gardens and stated that it was only the first time he saw the gardens and the police officers who arrested Alfredo.33 Josephine testified that in the early morning of February 11, 2011, she was in their house cooking when she saw spotlights coming from the house of her brother, Alfredo. After 30 minutes, the spotlights were turned off. Josephine went to Alfredo's house and saw him handcuffed and seated on a chair while her other brothers were cooking. She stayed for 10 minutes and left to return to her house. At around 7:00 a.m., Josephine saw the police officers and her three brothers leave the house. Josephine learned that they went to Lebeng, where a helicopter picked them up.34 Josephine added that she was not able to see any marijuana or wooden molder at Alfredo's house.35 Enero testified that at around 3:00 a.m. on February 11, 2011, he, Allan, and Alfredo were at their house. Their house is a two-storey building and the second house was used as a kitchen. Enero and Allan stayed together, while Alfredo lived alone in the two-storey house. The police officers came and apprehended Allan and Alfredo. At around 7:00 a.m., the police officers brought Allan and Alfredo to a garden, while Enero stayed at the rice field because he was afraid of them. At around 2:00 p.m., he saw the police officers and his brothers walk back to their house. When Enero returned to their house, the police officers had taken Alfredo, leaving his mother, Josephine, and Allan at their house.36 Brgy. Chairperson Anatel testified that he was directed by police officers to proceed to Alfredo's house. When he arrived, he saw Alfredo handcuffed to a bed while Allan was hiding at the back of the house leaning on the wall. He also saw Enero leave the house because he was afraid of being taken by the police. The police officer told him that Alfredo was in possession of a bundle of marijuana and a jack used to press marijuana. The police officers also told him to sign a document. Brgy. Chairperson Anatel added that he was the first to sign the document and there was no media representative present.37 On September 25, 2020, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, this court finds ALLAN ACDANG y BALANGEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 16, Republic Act No. 9165 for cultivation or culture of marijuana plants classified as dangerous drugs or sources thereof. He is imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five million pesos ([PHP] 5,000,000.00). IT IS SO ORDERED.38 The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the crime charged39 and that despite the arresting officers' failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule the prosecution was nonetheless able to prove that the integrity of the seized marijuana plants was preserved.40 Allan appealed to the CA.41 He argued that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime charged.42 Allan also pointed out that there were numerous gaps and violations in the chain of custody that cast doubt regarding his guilt.43 On July 21, 2022, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision which affirmed Allan's conviction. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The September 25, 2020 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, La Trinidad, Benguet in Criminal Case No. 11-CR-8410 is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.44 The CA ruled that no error was committed by the RTC when it convicted Allan of cultivation of marijuana.45 It found that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of the crime charged,46 justify the deviations from the chain of custody rule,47 and prove that the integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved.48 Hence, Allan filed the instant Appeal. On February 20, 2023, this Court issued a Resolution49 directing the parties to file their supplemental briefs. On April 26, 2023, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion50 which informed this Court that it will not file a supplemental brief. On May 2, 2023, the Public Attorney's Office filed a Manifestation51 on Allan's behalf which also informed this Court that Allan will no longer file a supplemental brief. Issue Whether accused-appellant Allan Acdang y Balangen is guilty of violation of Section 16 of Republic Act No. 9165. This Court's Ruling The Appeal is meritorious. Accused-appellant was charged with cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs or are sources thereof under Section 16 of Republic Act No. 9165, which reads: SECTION 16. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous Drugs or are Sources Thereof. – The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos ([PHP]500,000.00) to Ten million pesos ([PHP]10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who shall plant, cultivate or culture marijuana, opium poppy or any other plant regardless of quantity, which is or may hereafter be classified as a dangerous drug or as a source from which any dangerous drug may be manufactured or derived: Provided, That in the case of medical laboratories and medical research centers which cultivate or culture marijuana, opium poppy and other plants, or materials of such dangerous drugs for medical experiments and research purposes, or for the creation of new types of medicine, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines for the proper cultivation, culture, handling, experimentation and disposal of such plants and materials. Thus, to convict an accused of such crime, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) the accused knowingly planted, cultivated or cultured marijuana, opium poppy or any plant which is or may be classified as a dangerous drug or a source from which a dangerous drug may be manufactured or derived; and (2) such planting, cultivating and culturing was not authorized by law. Here, while accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto cultivating marijuana plants, the arresting officers' failure to comply with the chain of custody cast doubt on the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti which necessitates his acquittal. Accused-appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto cultivating marijuana The general rule is that no arrest can be made without a warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution relevantly provides that: Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Nevertheless, the wording of the constitutional provision leaves room for warrantless arrests or searches and seizures if deemed "reasonable."52 Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the instances when warrantless arrests can be made: Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraph[s] (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. In a warrantless arrest made pursuant to Section 5(a) or arrests made in flagrante delicto, it is required that the apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause to arrest a person caught.53 Probable cause with respect to arrests refers to "such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent [person] to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested."54 Thus, two elements must concur in a valid in flagrante delicto arrest: first, the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and second, such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.55 Here, both elements of a valid in flagrante delicto arrest were present when accused-appellant was taken into custody by members of Team Omega as shown in the testimonies of their members: TESTIMONY OF IO1 ACOSTA DIRECT EXAMINATION OF PROS. CABANTAC . . . . Q: What did you find out when you went back to this plantation site at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning of February 11, 2011? A: There we saw two (2) male individuals acting like cleaning or uprooting grasses in the plantation site, ma'am. Q: What do you mean by "acting like uprooting"? A: They were cleaning the beds in the plantation site, ma'am. Q: Considering the fact that there was marijuana and other plants found in the area, particularly what beds of plants are they cleaning? A: The marijuana, ma'am. Q: There were two (2) male persons? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: They were on the same bed of marijuana? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: When they were uprooting these weeds as you said? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: How far were you from these two (2) persons who were then cleaning this bed of marijuana plants? A: From where we hid ourselves, ma'am? Q: When you arrived because from the place where the team hid themselves it is about 30 to 50 meters? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: And then you went back to the plantation site the following morning of February 11 at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: And then you saw the two (2) male persons? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: The team, how far was your team when you saw these two (2) persons cleaning the marijuana beds? A: More or less ten (10) meters, ma'am. Q: When the team saw these two (2) persons cleaning these bed of marijuana plants, what happened? A: We rushed and arrested them, ma'am. Q: When you say "you rushed", who in particular rushed to arrest these two (2) male persons? A: The police officers and me, ma'am. Q: All of you? A: Yes, ma'am, but only a few grabbed the two (2) persons. Q: Who grabbed these two (2) male persons? A: SPO4 Luna and Agent Asayco from PDEA-Region 1, ma'am. Q: There are two (2) accused in these cases, Mr. Witness? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Accused Alfredo Acdang as far as you can recall who arrested Alfredo Acdang? A: It was Agent Asayco who grabbed him. Q: How about Allan Acdang? A: SPO4 Luna, ma'am. Q: After these two (2) persons were restrained by Asayco and Luna, what happened next? A: I told them that they were arrested for cultivating marijuana plants; after that, PO2 Boado conducted body search to look for illegal items.56 TESTIMONY OF PO2 BOADO DIRECT EXAMINATION OF PROS. CABANTAC Q: So[,] the team went to the plantation the early morning at about 6:45? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: And when you arrived at the plantation, what did you see? A: From there, we saw two (2) male persons in the act of cleaning, [and] weeding the marijuana plantation, ma'am. Q: You said we saw two (2) male persons cleaning the plantation? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: And when you say plantation, you are referring to the 5000 square meters? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: What were they cleaning? What part of the plantation were they cleaning? A: They were cleaning the marijuana seedlings, ma'am. Q: They were cleaning the beds of marijuana? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: They were cleaning them with what? A: They are removing the weeds which grew on the beds of marijuana, ma'am. Q: There were about 25-30 beds of marijuana as you have said a while ago. When you saw these two (2) male persons, what bed were they cleaning? A: They were cleaning a bed of marijuana seedlings, ma'am. Q: The same bed of marijuana? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: This bed of marijuana is located on what part of the plantation, the 5000 square meters? A: It is located at the entrance of the plantation, ma'am. Q: And when you saw these two (2) male persons, what did the team do? A: Agent Acosta and I introduced ourselves as PDEA Agent and Police Officer and ordered these two (2) male persons not to move and then our team leader Atty. Ancheta requested SPO4 Luna and Agent Asayco to assist us in effecting the arrest of these two (2) persons, ma'am. Q: How did you and Acosta introduce yourselves to the two (2) male persons that you saw cleaning the plantation? A: We approached them, and we got hold of them and told them of our authority, likewise the nature of their arrest and likewise their Constitutional Rights, ma'am. Q: So[,] who arrested the two (2) male persons? A: I and Agent Acosta and we were assisted by the [sic] SPO4 Luna and Agenty [sic] Asayco, ma'am.57 From the foregoing, accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto tending to marijuana plants, an act punishable under Republic Act No. 9165. Thus, the members of Team Omega had a valid reason to arrest him sans any judicial warrant. The same notwithstanding, the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the chain of evidence rule. Hence, there is reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the illegal flora presented as evidence in the case In cases involving cultivation or culture of plants considered as dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove to the point of moral certainty that the illegal flora which was planted, cultivated or cultured by the accused and seized by the apprehending officer/s are the very same flora which was examined by the laboratory and presented to court as evidence.58 This requirement is known as the chain of custody rule under Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, which was created to safeguard against doubts concerning the identity of the seized dangerous drugs.59 The chain of custody is defined as the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each stage, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until it is presented to the court.60 The chain of custody, as a method of authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of the seized drugs are removed.61 In People v. Watamama,62 this Court discussed that the prosecution must establish the following links to present a continuous and unbroken chain of custody: [(1)] the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; [(2)] the turn-over of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; [(3)] the turn-over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and [(4)] the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.63 With respect to the first link in the chain of evidence, i.e., the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, relevantly provides: 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: (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items. In Nisperos v. People,64 this Court synthesized relevant jurisprudence with respect to the first link in the chain of custody and provided the following guidelines: In order to guide the bench, the bar and the public, particularly our law enforcement officers, the Court hereby adopts the following guidelines: 1. The marking of the seized dangerous drugs must be done: a. Immediately upon confiscation; b. At the place of confiscation; and c. In the presence of the offender (unless the offender eluded arrest); 2. The conduct of inventory and taking of photographs of the seized dangerous drugs must be done: a. Immediately after seizure and confiscation; b. 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; and c. Also in the presence of the insulating witnesses, as follows: i. If the seizure occurred during the effectivity of R.A. No. 9165, or from July 4, 2002 until August 6, 2014, the presence of three (3) witnesses namely: an elected public official; a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative; and a media representative; ii. If the seizure occurred after the effectivity of R.A. No. 10640, or from August 7, 2014 onwards, the presence of two (2) witnesses; namely, an elected public official; and a National Prosecution Service representative or a media representative. 3. In case of any deviation from the foregoing, the prosecution must positively acknowledge the same and prove (1) justifiable ground/s for non-compliance, and (2) the proper preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item/s.65 A review of the records of the case shows that the apprehending officers were unable to strictly comply with the foregoing guidelines. Considering that the seizure of the marijuana seedlings and plants were done on February 11, 2011, the apprehending officers should have taken photographs and conducted an inventory of the seized drugs in the presence of three witnesses, namely: (l) an elected public official; (2) a representative from the Department of Justice; and (3) a media representative. However, in this case, no witnesses were present when the apprehending officers took photographs and inventoried the marijuana plants that they seized from the plantations as shown by IO1 Acosta testimony which he gave during Alfredo's trial: Q: Mr. witness, even after the alleged arrest of these two (2) persons, nobody among you thought of calling for barangay officials to witness the uprooting or destruction of the alleged marijuana, is that correct? A: No, sir. Q: Again, what do you mean by no? Nobody thought or what? A: Of course, the team leader already thought that but considering the distance from houses, sir. Q: So no officials from that place were present during the alleged destruction of the marijuana plantation, is that clear to us? A: Yes, sir. Q: Again, the samples that were present in court, it was not marked at the place where you gathered these samples of evidence? A: Of course, I marked the same in the area, sir. Q: In the presence only of your companions? A: And the two (2) accused, sir. Atty. Santos: Q: And yet according to your statement, after the alleged arrest of the accused, you went to look for their house, is that correct? A: Yes because it is their request, sir. Q: And when you went to their house, you searched in their house? A: No, sir. Q: Now, Mr. witness, when you went to their house, did you call for any barangay official? A: Yes, sir. Q: Are you sure of that, Mr. witness? A: Yes, sir.66 Relevantly, the foregoing testimony of IO1 Acosta was adopted by the prosecution against accused-appellant.67 In any event, IO1 Acosta, when he was recalled as a witness against accused-appellant, reiterated that no insulating witnesses were present when Team Omega conducted an inventory and took photographs of the plants supposedly being tended to by accused-appellant when he was arrested: ATTY. ABLOG: Yes your honor. How many hours did you stay at the house of both accused? A: Just about maybe 30 minutes Ma'am. Q: Just 30 minutes, do you remember where the inventory was made? A: The inventory was made on site Ma'am, on the first plantation site Ma'am we made an inventory, on the second plantation site, we made an inventory and we made also an inventory in their house Ma'am. Q: So the first inventory was made at the plantation site, first plantation, and the second inventory was made where Sir? COURT: At the second plantation. ATTY. ABLOG: At the second plantation, and that is all the inventory? PROS. CABANTAC: And one at the house. Q: One at the? A: House Ma'am. Q: So you have three inventories? A: No Ma'am, just one copy of the inventory but considering that there were two plantation sites, on the first plantation site, I made an inventory and also an inventory on the second plantation site and at the house. Q: So the first inventory was made on the first plantation, correct? A: Yes ma'am. Q: And the second inventory was made at the house of the suspect? Court: No, second plantation and the third inventory was made at the house of the accused. A: Yes Your Honor. Atty. Ablog: Yes, thank you Your Honor. Q: So there are three inventories, correct Sir? A: Yes Ma'am. Q: And you identified as your Exhibit "B" and "B-1" an Inventory of the seized items, may we know where is the third inventory Sir? A: I mean Ma'am, I made an inventory on the first plantation site but dinagdag lang po doon sa, the same certificate of inventory. Court: Teka, gumawa ka ng inventory, anong klase ng inventory ang ginawa mo sa first plantation? A: Your Honor, I made, I got a sample of the marijuana seedlings and after that, we burned and the whole marijuana plantation site was inventoried Your Honor. Q: Inventory, what do you understand by inventory? A: We will get the size of the area Your honor, after which we will count the number of plants . . . . Q: Now, at the time that you were marking the entries in "Exhibit "B", particularly when you were at the plantations one and two, the barangay official as well as the media representatives were not around? A: Yes Ma'am. Q: And why did you require them to sign when they were not around, why did you ask them to sign Exhibit "B" when in fact, they were not around at the time that you were making these entries? A: The barangay official was present when I entered the third column entry of this certificate Ma'am. Q: But he was not around at the first and second plantation, correct? A: Yes Ma'am.68 Evidently, none of the required insulating witnesses were present when members of Team Omega inventoried and took photographs of the marijuana seedlings/plants that they supposedly seized from the plantations tended to by the accused-appellant, which is a clear violation of the first link in the chain of custody. The same notwithstanding, the absence of the required insulating witnesses does not automatically invalidate the police operation that resulted in the seizure of illegal drugs. In People v. Casa,69 this Court expounded on the saving clause found in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended and when it can be invoked: The third and final portion of Sec. 21(1) refers to the saving clause. It states that: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items. This portion was initially found in the IRR of R.A. No. 9165. However, in the advent of R.A. No. 10640, it is now included in the text of the law. While the chain of custody has been a critical issue leading to acquittals in drug cases, the Court has nevertheless held that noncompliance with the prescribed procedures does not necessarily result in the conclusion that the identity of the seized drugs has been compromised so that an acquittal should follow. The last portion of Sec. 21(1), provides a saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of noncompliance will irretrievably prejudice the prosecution's case. In People v. Luna, the Court laid down the requisites to apply the saving clause: As a rule, strict compliance with the foregoing requirements is mandatory. However, following the IRR of RA 9165, the courts may allow a deviation from these requirements if the following requisites are availing: (1) the existence of "justifiable grounds" allowing departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. If these two elements concur, the seizure and custody over the confiscated items shall not be rendered void and invalid; ergo, the integrity of the corpus delicti remains untarnished. x x x . . . . Following a plain reading of the law, it is now settled that [noncompliance] with the mandatory procedure in Section 21 triggers the operation of the saving clause enshrined in the IRR of RA 9165. Verbal egis non est recedendum — from the words of a statute there should be no departure. Stated otherwise, in order not to render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the evidence obtained, the prosecution must, as a matter of law, establish that such [noncompliance] was based on justifiable grounds and that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Hence, before the prosecution can rely on this saving mechanism, they (the apprehending team) muse first recognize lapses, and, if any are found to exist, they must justify the same accordingly. Accordingly, before the prosecution can invoke the saving clause, they must satisfy the two requisites: 1. The existence of "justifiable grounds" allowing departure from the rule on strict compliance; and 2. The integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. Whenever the first prong is not complied with, the prosecution shall not be allowed to invoke the saving clause to salvage its case. In Valencia v. People, it was underscored that the arresting officers are under obligation, should they be unable to comply with the procedures laid down under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, to explain why the procedure was not followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law would merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience. Similarly, in People v. Acub, the Court also did not apply the first prong of the saving clause because, despite the blatant lapses, the prosecution did not explain the arresting officers' failure to comply with the requirements in Sec. 21. On the other hand, the second prong requires that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. According to People v.(awÞhi( Adobar, the integrity of the seized illegal drugs, despite noncompliance with Sec. 21, requires establishing the four links in the chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.70 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted.) In People v. Baluyot,71 this Court provided examples of circumstances that can be considered as "justifiable grounds" that will excuse the presence of the insulating witnesses and held that, aside from invoking such justifiable grounds, the prosecution must also prove that the arresting officers exerted earnest efforts to procure the presence of the required insulating witnesses: Indubitably, this strict requirement is subject to exceptions as well. The case of People v. Lim holds that in the event of absence of one or more of the witnesses, the prosecution must allege and prove that their presence during the inventory of the seized items was not obtained due to reasons 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[s] 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[d] 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. The prosecution must show that the apprehending officers employed earnest efforts in procuring the attendance of witnesses for the inventory of the items seized during the buy-bust operation. Mere statements of unavailability of the witnesses given by the apprehending officers are not justifiable reasons for non-compliance with the requirement. This is because the apprehending officers usually have sufficient time, from the moment they received information about the alleged illegal activities until the time of the arrest, to prepare for the buy-bust operation that necessarily includes the procurement of three (3) witnesses. If one of the individuals invited refuses to participate as witness, the apprehending officers can still invite another individual to become a witness.72 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) Here, while it is true that the plantations were in a remote area,73 the prosecution failed to show that members of Team Omega exerted earnest efforts to ensure that the required witness accompanied them in their planned police operation. Notably, despite having prior knowledge that there were marijuana plantations in their area of operation, the testimony of the members of Team Omega, as well as the evidence on record are bereft of any mention that any step was taken to secure the presence of insulating witnesses. Considering that the prosecution failed to explain the absence of the required insulating witnesses, the deviation from the Nisperos guidelines remains unjustified which compromises the chain of custody in this case. It is settled that the effect of noncompliance with the chain of custody is the failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti and such will lead to the acquittal of the accused for failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.74 In light of the clear and unjustified violation of the chain of custody in this case, Allan's acquittal is warranted. ACCORDINGLY, the Appeal is GRANTED. The June 21, 2022 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 14950 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Allan Acdang y Balangen is ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 16 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being held for some other lawful cause. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report to this Court, within five days from receipt of this Decision, the action that he has taken. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately. SO ORDERED. Gesmundo, C.J., Hernando, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Rosario, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur. Leonen, SAJ., see dissenting opinion. Caguioa, J., see concurring opinion. Lazaro-Javier, J., please see dissent. Gaerlan, J., I joint the dissent of SAJ. Leonen. Singh, J.,* on leave. Footnotes * On leave. ** Also referred to as "Allan Acadang y Balangen" in some parts of the rollo. 1 Rollo, pp. 3-6. 2 Id. at 9-33. The June 21, 2022 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 14950 was penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justices Carlito B. Calpatura and Jose Lorenzo R. Dela Rosa of the Sixteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila. 3 Id. at 36-56. The September 25, 2020 Decision in Criminal Case No. 11-CR-8410 was penned by Judge Jennifer Palaguitang Humiding of Branch 63, Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet. 4 RTC records, pp. 11-12. 5 Id. at 11. 6 Id. at 228-251. The December 3, 2013 Decision in Criminal Case No. 11-CR-8410 was penned by Judge Danilo P. Camacho of Branch 62, Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet. 7 Id. at 1. 8 Id. at 27. 9 Id. at 29-30. 10 Id. at 33. Dated August l, 2016. 11 Id. at 52-56. 12 TSN, IO1 Nickson Q. Acosta, August 3, 2011, p. 5. 13 First name not found in the records. 14 TSN, IO1 Nickson Q. Acosta, August 3, 2011, p. 6. 15 Id. at 6-9. 16 Id. at 10-16. 17 Id. at 16-20. 18 TSN, IO1 Nickson Q. Acosta, January 24, 2018, p. 12 19 TSN, IO1 Nickson Q. Acosta, October 5, 2011, pp. 8-9. 20 CA rollo, p. 115. 21 TSN, IO1 Nickson Q. Acosta, August 3, 2011, pp. 24-26. 22 CA rollo, p. 191. 23 TSN, IO1 Nickson Q. Acosta, August 3, 2011, pp. 28-29. 24 TSN, PO2 Christian R. Boado, November 9, 2011, pp. 4-11. 25 Id. at 11-13. 26 TSN, Atty. Allan D. Ancheta, February 7, 2018, pp. 4-6. 27 Records, p. 19. 28 TSN, IO1 Randy M. Tindaan, April 16, 2012, pp. 4-5. 29 Records, p. 20. 30 Id. at 17. 31 Id. at 278. 32 TSN, PSINSP Rowena F. Canlas, February 20, 2012, pp. 19-30. 33 TSN, Allan Acdang, March 25, 2019, pp. 3-14. 34 TSN, Josephine A. Lentino, October 3, 2012, pp. 4-14. 35 TSN, Josephine A. Lentino, November 14, 2018, pp. 7-8. 36 TSN, Enero, P. Acdang, March 6, 2019, pp. 3-11. 37 TSN, Barangay Chairperson Pedanio Anatel, June 27, 2012, pp. 6-14. 38 Rollo, p. 56. 39 Id. at 43-49. 40 Id. at 49-55. 41 CA rollo, pp. 11-12. 42 Id. at 92-95. 43 Id. at 95-108. 44 Rollo, p. 32. 45 Id. at 20 46 Id. at 20-24. 47 Id. at 24-31. 48 Id. at 31-32. 49 Id. at 57. 50 Id. at 59-62. 51 Id. at 63-67. 52 People v. Rangaig, 901 Phil. 390, 404-405 (2021) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]. 53 People v. Jumarang, 928 Phil. 27, 32 (2022) [Per J. J. Lopez, Second Division]. 54 Evardo v. People, 902 Phil. 414, 441 (2021) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division). 55 People v. Malado, 908 Phil. 237, 250 (2021) [Per J. Carandang, First Division]. 56 TSN, IO1 Nickson Q. Acosta, August 3, 2011, pp. 16-18. 57 TSN, PO2 Christian R. Boado, November 9, 2011, pp. 9-11. 58 People v. Bation, G.R. No. 237422, February 14, 2024 [Per J. Hernando, First Division] at 10. This pinpoint citation refers to the copy of the Decision uploaded to the Supreme Court website. 59 People v. Bangcola, 849 Phil. 742, 753 (2019) [Per J. Gesmundo, First Division]. 60 People v. Del Rosario, 874 Phil. 881, 894 (2020) [Per J. Gesmundo, Third Division]. 61 People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582, 591 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]. 62 692 Phil. 102 (2012) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division]. 63 Id. at 107. 64 931 Phil. 945 2022 [Per J. Rosario, En Banc]. 65 Id. at 956-957. 66 TSN, Nickson Acosta, September 14, 2011, pp. 23-24. 67 Rollo, p. 37. 68 TSN, Nickson Acosta, January 24, 2018, pp. 12-27. 69 928 Phil. 356 (2022) [Per C.J. Gesmundo, En Banc]. 70 Id. at 387-390. 71 887 Phil. 173 (2020) [Per J. Hernando, Second Division]. 72 Id. at 192-193. 73 RTC records, pp. 15-16. 74 Pimentel v. People, 869 Phil. 820, 842 (2020) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation