G.R. No. 172953 - Mallillin y Lopez vs. People

On 4 February 2003, pursuant to RTC Sorsogon City Branch 52 search warrant, a five‐man police team led by P/Insp. Bolanos raided petitioner’s residence in Barangay Tugos, Sorsogon City, in the presence of barangay kagawad Licup, petitioner, his wife Sheila, and his mother Norma.
The team allegedly recovered from petitioner’s bedroom two plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) and five empty sachets containing residue. PO3 Esternon brought the items to Balogo Police Station for inventory, then to the trial court, and later to the crime laboratory.

Bolanos testified he supervised the search, ordered Esternon and Licup to conduct it, and observed the discovery of sachets in petitioner’s presence.
Esternon claimed to have found a denim bag with empty sachets behind the door and two filled sachets under a pillow, then called SPO2 Gallinera to record and mark them.
Forensic chemist Arroyo confirmed positive shabu in the two sachets and residue in four of the empties.

Petitioner and family testified that during the critical moments petitioner was sent out to buy cigarettes and could not witness the pillow search; Sheila was separately searched; Licup waited outside when Esternon later announced the filled sachets discovery.
They pointed to irregular handling, absence of key handlers in court, and procedural deviations under R.A. 9165 and the Rules of Court.

RTC (20 June 2004) convicted petitioner of illegal possession of shabu (Sec. 11, RA 9165), sentencing him to 12 years + 1 day to 20 years imprisonment and a ₱300,000 fine, relying on animus possidendi and presumption of regularity.
CA (27 January 2006) affirmed conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate term of 12 to 17 years. Reconsideration was denied (30 May 2006).
Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court, challenging chain of custody and search irregularities; the OSG defended the regularity of police performance.

Whether the prosecution established the corpus delicti and identity of the seized shabu beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the prosecution complied with chain of custody requirements for fungible evidence.
Whether the search and seizure conformed to R.A. 9165 § 21 and Rule 126, § 12 of the Rules of Court, and if the presumption of regularity could stand against contrary proof.