People v. Ampaso y Macapaar

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 242949. July 14, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. GLENN AMPASO y MACAPAAR, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 14, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 242949 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Glenn Ampaso y Macapaar, accused-appellant).

This is an automatic appeal of the July 31, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02412. The CA affirmed the October 14, 2016 Joint Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Branch 59 (RTC), finding Glenn Ampaso y Macapaar (accused-appellant) guilty of selling and using illegal drugs.

Antecedents

Accused-appellant was charged of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 3 The information reads:

Criminal Case No. RTC-5266

That on or about 4:00 P.M., March 25, 2014 at the National Highway, Hda. 4 [San] Antonio, [Barangay] Guadalupe, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell, deliver, and give away to a poseur[-]buyer in the buy bust operation conducted by the San Carlos City PNP, one (1) heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.978 gram of white crystalline substance and received the [Php500.00] marked money with SN KF155234 as payment for said sachet of shabu, which when subjected to laboratory examination yielded positive result for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in gross violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

He was also charged of violating Sec. 15, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165:

Criminal Case No. RTC-5265

That on or about 4:00 o'clock P.M., March 25, 2014 at the National Highway, [Hda.] San Antonio, [Barangay] Guadalupe, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, having been apprehended or arrested for violating Section 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, without any authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally found to be positive to the test for Methamphetamine [Hydrochloride], a dangerous drug, after screening and confirmatory tests conducted on the urine sample of herein accused, in gross violation of Section 15, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

Accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charges. Thereafter, pre-trial and trial ensued. 7

Version of the prosecution

In the evening of March 23, 2014, Police Officer III Clark Monino L. Nieves (PO3 Nieves) of the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSOTF) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) received a call from a confidential informant (CI) that a certain alias "Glenn," who was later identified as accused-appellant, was engaged in selling illegal drugs, specifically shabu, and usually conducts his transactions along the highways of Hda. San Jose and Barangay Guadalupe in San Carlos City. 8

The following morning, PO3 Nieves and Police Officer III Carlos Alob (PO3 Alob) relayed the information to their superior, PSUPT. Victorino E. Romanillos, Jr. (PSUPT. Romanillos), who then instructed the former to verify the information. On the same day, PO3 Nieves and the CI conducted a test-buy with accused-appellant. 9

As the information proved accurate a buy-bust operation was initiated against "Glenn" on March 25, 2014, where a team was formed consisting of PO3 Nieves, PO3 Alob, and Police Officer II Joe Zernan L. Guinanao (PO2 Guinanao) who was designated as poseur-buyer. At around 12:00 in the afternoon of the same day, PO3 Nieves instructed the CI to contact accused-appellant and arrange a "buy-meet." After a few minutes, the CI replied that accused-appellant had agreed to meet at the National Highway, Hda. San Antonio, Barangay Guadalupe between 3:30 to 4:30 in the afternoon. 10

After the briefing by PSUPT. Romanillos, the buy-bust team proceeded to the agreed upon area. PO2 Guinanao and the CI parked their motorcycle beside the sugarcane plantation, while the rest of the team hid within the plantation. At around 3:55 in the afternoon, accused-appellant arrived on board a motorcycle and approached the CI. After a brief conversation, PO2 Guinanao gave the marked money 11 to accused-appellant who, in turn, took out a Marlboro cigarette pack from his pocket and told them that the shabu was inside. PO2 Guinanao immediately checked the contents of the cigarette pack, then honked his motorcycle horn, the pre-arranged signal for the consummated transaction, after confirming that the pack contained a plastic sachet consisting of a white crystalline substance (seized drugs). 12

Upon hearing the signal, PO3 Nieves and PO3 Alob, with the rest of the team, rushed to the scene to arrest accused-appellant. Accused-appellant hysterically tried to resist, but was eventually subdued by the police officers. Thereafter, accused-appellant was brought to the police station along with the seized drugs because the area was unsafe. At the police station, PO2 Guinanao turned over the seized drugs to Police Officer III Lester Delubio (PO3 Delubio), the evidence custodian. PO3 Delubio marked the seized drugs and conducted the inventory in the presence of accused-appellant, media representatives Henry Sandoval and Ben Hur Villasor, Barangay Kagawad Ronilo Vuelga, Barangay Captain Godofredo Salimbaga, and Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Julius Dela Rosa. 13

Subsequently, PO3 Delubio along with PO2 Guinanao brought accused-appellant and the seized drugs to the PNP Crime Laboratory for urine and laboratory examination, respectively. The specimens were received by the duty officer, Police Officer III Ariel Magbanua (PO3 Magbanua), who then handed over the same to the forensic chemical officer, Engineer Paul Jerome Puentespina (Engr. Puentespina), for testing. The tests yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine in the urine, and methamphetamine hydrochloride in the seized drugs. 14

Version of the defense

At around 11:00 in the morning of March 25, 2014, accused-appellant's aunt, who runs a clothing business, requested accused-appellant to go to Pano-ulan and Buluangan to collect money. On his way, he was flagged down by three (3) officers, one of whom was in police uniform, whom he thought were Land Transportation Office personnel. The officers frisked him, then led him towards the sugarcane field where individuals in civilian attire came out from hiding. The officers put handcuffs on him and took the Marlboro cigarette pack from his pocket. He was left sitting in the waiting shed while the officers appeared to be looking for something. When the officers came back to the shed, they showed him something similar to "tawas" and "made him admit that he owned it." 15

The RTC Ruling

In its October 14, 2016 Joint Decision, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of both charges. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment finding accused GLENN AMPASO y Macapaar:

1. in Criminal Case No. RTC-5265 "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 15, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 and it appearing that this is his first offense, hereby sentences him to undergo rehabilitation for at least six (6) months in a government center; and

2. in Criminal Case No. RTC-5266 "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a Fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.

xxx xxx xxx

SO ORDERED. 16

The RTC rejected accused-appellant's unsubstantiated defense of denial and ruled that the same cannot overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. 17

Accused-appellant elevated the case to the CA.

On appeal, accused-appellant argued that: 1) the weakness of his defense should not be utilized to strengthen the prosecution's case; 2) the gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs puts into doubt the identity of the same, specifically that the marking was not done immediately at the place of arrest or nearest police station, and was made by another officer at the police station; and 3) the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses puts into question their credibility. Accused-appellant posited that these circumstances show that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; therefore, he should be acquitted.

The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), maintained that accused-appellant's bare denial cannot overweigh the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The OSG posited that the alleged inconsistent testimonies of the police officers pertained to minor details that do not affect the elements of the crime. It further countered that the prosecution cannot be faulted for not presenting more evidence with regard to the first link of the chain of custody of the seized drugs given that the parties entered into a stipulation on the matter of the turnover of the seized drugs from PO2 Guinanao, the apprehending officer, to PO3 Delubio, the officer who marked the evidence and prepared the inventory. 18

The CA Ruling

In its July 31, 2018 Decision, the CA upheld accused-appellant's conviction:

WHEREFORE, the Joint Decision dated October 14, 2016 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, in Criminal Case No. RTC-5266 and Criminal Case No. RTC-5265 convicting accused-appellant Glenn Ampaso y Macapaar of Violation of Section 5 and Violation of Section 15 respectively, of Article II of R.A. [No.] 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 is AFFIRMED.

Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED. 19

The CA agreed with the RTC that the prosecution was able to establish that accused-appellant sold illegal drugs to PO2 Guinanao for the consideration of P500.00 during a buy-bust operation. 20 The CA also ruled that the records support the finding that the prosecution was able to establish the corpus delicti of the crime as the links of the chain of custody were properly accounted for. It accepted the police officers' explanation that they conducted the marking at the police station because accused-appellant tried to resist and evade arrest, and the place of arrest was unsafe. The CA clarified that such fact neither invalidates the arrest of accused-appellant nor casts doubt on the evidentiary value of the seized drugs, as the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are presumed absent any bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. 21

The CA likewise noted that accused-appellant did not adduce any evidence to support his defenses of denial and frame-up, and that no ill motive can be imputed to the police witnesses. As such, it affirmed the finding of the RTC that the police officers' categorical testimonies should prevail over the bare denial of accused-appellant given that there appear no material facts or circumstances that have been overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded by the RTC. 22

As to accused-appellant's conviction for use of dangerous drugs, the CA observed that accused-appellant did not rebut the evidence against him; and that it is a proven fact that he tested positive for the use of methamphetamine hydrochloride as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. DT-052-2014. 23

On December 10, 2018, this Court notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs within 30 days from receipt of the notice. 24 However, both parties manifested that they no longer intended to file supplemental briefs. 25

The Ruling of the Court

The appeal has merit.

Prefatorily, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review; and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 26

The elements for illegal sale of dangerous drugs are: 1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The prosecution must establish with moral certainty that the accused peddled illicit drugs 27 and that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were properly preserved. 28 The procedure for its preservation of the chain of custody of the seized drugs is set forth in Sec. 21, 29 Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). 30

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was, and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 31

Strict compliance with the requirements of Sec. 21 is mandatory. However, the Court may allow noncompliance with the requirements in cases where the following requisites are present: 1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow departure from the rule on strict compliance; and 2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. If these two elements are present, the seizures and custody over the confiscated items shall not be rendered void and invalid. 32 The justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 33 In People v. Mola, 34 the Court reiterated that such grounds should be substantiated or corroborated by evidence.

The CA ruled that the noncompliance of the apprehending officers with the mandatory procedural requirements on the handling of the seized drugs was justified, based on PO2 Guinanao's statement that "the target area was not safe for them" and because of the fact that the accused-appellant attempted to resist and evade arrest. 35 It is also noteworthy that the CA did not address accused-appellant's argument that the marking was done by an officer who was not present during the actual buy-bust operation.

A careful scrutiny of the records reveals that no justifiable ground exists which would allow departure from the rule on strict compliance. At no point in the proceedings was there offered any explanation as to the reason for PO2 Guinanao's failure to mark the seized drugs immediately after the arrest and as to the precautions he had taken to ensure the integrity of the seized drugs from the point of its seizure from accused-appellant to its turnover to PO3 Delubio. The lapses are apparent from the testimony of PO2 Guinanao:

Q: So[,] if this sachet of shabu which was given to you in exchange for [Php500.00] payment if this be shown to you[,] would you be able to identify the same?

A: Yes[,] Ma'am.

Q: Why do you known that is the same one that was given to you by the accused?

A: Because I am the one who [got] the items from Glenn Ampaso and Glenn Ampaso gave me the shabu and I gave him the [Php500.00-bill].

Q: But did you make any markings or to differentiate this sachet of shabu from other items confiscated from him?

A: It was Lester Delubio who marked the evidence.

Q: And where was the marking made?

A: The Desk Officer in the Police Station. 36

xxx xxx xxx

Q: So[,] from the time you got the sachet of shabu in exchange of the [Php500.00-bill] that you paid him, who has the possession of the sachet of shabu?

A: I did.

Q: So[,] you were the one in possession and custody?

A: Yes[,] Ma'am.

Q: And when did you turn over this you said to the Officer Delubio for the markings?

A: After we already brought him to the Police Station at the Desk Officer. 37

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Why did you not mark it yourself at the time it was received by you?

A: Because we were in a hurry and the area was not safe for us. 38

In an Affidavit 39 executed by PO2 Guinanao in filing the case, he affirmed that accused-appellant "acted hysterically and tried to resist arrest" but he was able to control and hold him; and that accused-appellant calmed down after seeing PO3 Nieves and PO3 Alob approaching. In the same affidavit, allegations as to circumstances showing how the place of arrest was unsafe for the conduct of the marking are conspicuously missing.

Moreover, the absence of an account of the measures PO2 Guinanao took to safeguard the integrity of the seized drugs becomes more significant given that he acknowledged that the sugarcane plantation where accused-appellant was apprehended was "quite far" from the police station:

Q: And how far is [the sugarcane plantation] from the police precinct the place where you prepared your Receipt of Items Seized x x x, how far is the scene of the incident in this case?

A: It is also quite far, it is already in Barangay Guadalupe.

Q: So[,] in other words after you confiscated items from the accused you were physically to safe keep with you and travel how many kilometers to reach the police precinct of San Carlos?

A: I cannot estimate the distance in kilometers from Barangay Guadalupe to the Police Station. 40

The OSG, on the other hand, asserts that the "prosecution cannot be faulted for not having more proof on the link between PO2 Guinanao and PO3 Delubio" since accused-appellant "admitted that the items seized by PO2 Guinanao were the exact same items received by PO3 Delubio and subsequently turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory. 41

COURT:

Since he is testifying as Evidence Custodian, can we just have a stipulation?

That the evidence which were allegedly confiscated from the accused were turned over to him as the Evidence Custodian and that he was the one who brought them to the Crime Laboratory for examination.

ATTY. VILLACAMPA:

We can admit that your Honor as long as the alleged items were purportedly turned over to him.

COURT:

Yes, that the items allegedly confiscated from the accused were turned over to him as the Evidence Custodian of the AIDSOTF and he was the one who brought them to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination as shown by the request.

ATTY. VILLACAMPA:

Admitted, your Honor.

xxx xxx xxx

DIRECT EXAMINATION CONDUCTED

Q: So, you brought one (1) heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet allegedly containing shabu for laboratory examination?

A: Yes, Ma'am.

Q: This was turned over to you by Police Officer Guinanao?

A: Yes, Ma'am.

Q: You were not there at the time of the buy bust operation?

A: I was not there, Ma'am.

Q: How would you know that this is the same one seized from the accused during the buy bust operation conducted against accused?

ATTY. VILLACAMPA:

How can that be, your Honor[?]

PROS. SILAB:

He is going to identify, he was the one who made the markings.

ATTY. VILLACAMPA:

Your Honor, he was not even present when this drug . . . (Interrupted)

COURT:

Yes, how would he know that this is the one given to him.

PROS. SILAB:

I'm sorry, your Honor, because I was supposed to stipulate on the Affidavit that he executed.

COURT:

That is why and his Affidavit would only refer to the specimen which was turned over to him and which was turned-over to the PNP Crime Lab., so maybe the correct question should be not if he knows if this is the same ones which was confiscated from the accused but how would he know that this is the same one which was turned over to him and which he turned over to the Crime Lab., that is the jest [sic] of his participation.

PROS. SILAB:

At the start your Honor, in his testimony that he was also the one who made the markings. 42 (emphases supplied)

While it is true that the RTC proposed a stipulation on this matter which the defense admitted, a review of the transcript of PO3 Delubio's testimony shows that the stipulation is limited to the fact that the items, including the "alleged" seized drugs, turned over to him by PO2 Guinanao were the same ones he later brought to the crime laboratory for examination.

Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings; thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence. 43

Considering that, in this case, at the point of seizure, i.e., the first link in the chain of custody, irregularities were already attendant, it becomes futile to prove the rest of the links in the chain. Simply put, since "planting" of the drugs was already made possible at the point of seizure because of the absence of all three necessary witnesses, proving the chain after such point merely proves the chain of custody of planted drugs. 44

In People v. Cayas, 45 therein accused-appellant was acquitted due to the failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the rules on chain of custody and for lack of any explanation for noncompliance. Similarly, in this case, the marking was done at the police station by an officer who took no part in the actual buy-bust operation; and "the prosecution did not bother to offer any explanation for why the marking of the seized items was not made at the place of seizure.

Given the foregoing circumstances and applying the preceding legal precepts, the failure of the prosecution to justify noncompliance with the requirements is tantamount to failure in establishing the identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, thus, engendering the acquittal of accused-appellant. 46

The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty arises only when the records do not indicate any irregularity or flaw in the performance of official duty. Applied to dangerous drugs cases, the prosecution cannot rely on the presumption when there is a clear showing that the apprehending officers unjustifiably failed to comply with the requirements laid down in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR. In any case, the presumption of regularity cannot be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 47

Correspondingly, accused-appellant's conviction for use of dangerous drugs should also be reversed. The result of accused-appellant's drug test cannot be used as evidence against him as it is an indirect result of his illegal apprehension due to the police officers' noncompliance with the procedure provided in Sec. 21. Otherwise stated, if accused-appellant was not arrested in the first place, he would not have been subjected to a drug test because Sec. 38 48 refers to "any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act." As accused-appellant was not proved to have violated any of the provision of R.A. No. 9165, then the drug test conducted on him has no leg to stand on. 49

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The July 31, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02412, affirming the October 14, 2016 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Branch 59, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Glenn Ampaso y Macapaar is hereby ACQUITTED of the charges of illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case Nos. RTC-5265 and RTC-5266 for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, is ORDERED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution unless Glenn Ampaso y Macapaar is being lawfully held for any other reason, and to INFORM the Court of the date of his actual release from confinement within five (5) days of receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 4-14; penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Emily R. Aliño-Geluz, concurring.

2. CA rollo, pp. 51-55; penned by Presiding Judge Kathrine A. Go.

3. The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

4. Also referred to as "Had." in some parts of the CA rollo.

5. CA rollo, p. 52.

6.Id. at 51-52.

7.Id. at 52.

8.Id. at 75.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 75-76.

11. P500.00 bill with serial number KF155234.

12. CA rollo, p. 76.

13.Id. at 76-77.

14.Id. at 77-78.

15.Id. at 35.

16.Id. at 55.

17.Id. at 54-55.

18.Id. at 80-97.

19.Rollo, p. 14.

20.Id. at 9-10.

21.Id. at 10-12.

22.Id. at 13.

23.Id. at 12-13.

24.Id. at 22-23.

25.Id. at 27-33.

26.People v. Lumaya, 827 Phil. 473, 483 (2018).

27. See People v. Bocadi, 762 Phil. 468, 475 (2015).

28. See People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019.

29. 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; (emphasis supplied) x x x.

30. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," Article II, Sec. 21 (a). The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;Provided, further, that noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items; (emphasis supplied).

31.People v. Havana, 776 Phil. 462, 471-472 (2016).

32. See Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019.

33.People v. Patacsil, 838 Phil. 320, 332-333 (2018).

34. 830 Phil. 364 (2018).

35.Rollo, p. 12.

36. TSN, February 24, 2015, pp. 8-9.

37.Id. at 9.

38.Id. at 27.

39. Records, pp. 7-8.

40. TSN, February 24, 2015, pp. 24-25.

41. CA rollo, pp. 92-93.

42. TSN, October 6, 2015, pp. 3-7.

43.People v. Dela Victoria, 829 Phil. 675, 688 (2018).

44.People v. Salenga, G.R. No. 239903, September 11, 2019.

45. 789 Phil. 70 (2016).

46. See People v. Salenga, supra note 44.

47.People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.

48.Section 38.Laboratory Examination or Test on Apprehended/Arrested Offenders. — Subject to Section 15 of this Act, any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act shall be subjected to screening laboratory examination or test within twenty-four (24) hours, if the apprehending or arresting officer has reasonable ground to believe that the person apprehended or arrested, on account of physical signs or symptoms or other visible or outward manifestation, is under the influence of dangerous drugs. If found to be positive, the results of the screening laboratory examination or test shall be challenged within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the result through a confirmatory test conducted in any accredited analytical laboratory equipment with a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry equipment or some such modern and accepted method, if confirmed the same shall be prima facie evidence that such person has used dangerous drugs, which is without prejudice for the prosecution for other violations of the provisions of this Act: Provided, That a positive screening laboratory test must be confirmed for it to be valid in a court of law.

49.People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 237355, November 21, 2018.