G.R. No. 231989 - People vs. Lim y Miranda

Case Summary (G.R. No. 231989)

Key Dates

Incident and alleged buy‑bust: October 19, 2010.
Informations filed: October 21, 2010.
RTC decision convicting Lim: September 24, 2013.
Court of Appeals decision affirming RTC: February 23, 2017.
Supreme Court decision reversing and acquitting Lim: September 4, 2018.
Applicable law at time of incident: Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations; subsequent amendment by R.A. No. 10640 (2014) discussed by the Court.

Charges and statutory basis

Romy Lim was charged with (1) illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165; and (2) illegal sale of shabu, in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The corpus delicti offered in evidence consisted of two heat‑sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance, each weighing 0.02 gram. The prosecution also adduced a marked P500.00 bill allegedly used in the buy‑bust.

Prosecution version of events

A confidential informant reported that “Romy” was selling shabu at his house. A PDEA buy‑bust team was organized; roles were assigned (team leader, arresting/back‑up officer, poseur‑buyer). The poseur‑buyer, accompanied by the CI, allegedly entered Lim’s house, negotiated and received one sachet from Lim (or his stepson), paid the marked P500.00, and signaled the rest of the team by missed call. The arresting officer then entered, announced their identities, conducted a body search of Lim and Gorres, recovered from Lim a plastic box containing a sachet and the marked money, and marked the sachets with internal markings (BB AEO 10‑19‑10 and AEO‑RI 10‑19‑10). The team brought the accused and the specimens to the PDEA regional office and thereafter to the regional crime laboratory. Forensic chemist PSI Caceres examined the specimens and issued chemistry reports confirming the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride; urine screening showed Lim positive and Gorres negative.

Defense version of events

The defense described a forced entry by men in civilian clothing, physical abuse of the stepson, and coercion of Lim into an admission during inquest (attributed to fear of detention), asserting that Lim and Gorres were not involved in drugs. Lim had a prior PDEA arrest and acquittal in a separate case. The household door was reportedly damaged; the household partner, Rubenia Gorres, testified and presented photographs of the damaged door.

RTC findings and sentence

The RTC resolved credibility in favor of the prosecution, finding the buy‑bust transaction and possession/sale established. The RTC concluded the prosecution proved the identity of the buyer, seller, delivery, and transfer of marked money, and that the chain of custody of the seized items had been preserved. The RTC convicted Lim of illegal possession and illegal sale under R.A. No. 9165 (imprisonment and heavy fines) and acquitted Gorres for lack of proof of conspiracy.

Court of Appeals ruling

The CA affirmed the RTC. It concluded the buy‑bust procedure was valid, the elements of possession and sale were satisfied, and the integrity and identity of the seized drugs were adequately shown through testimony describing links in the chain of custody. The CA applied the presumption of regularity in official acts and rejected the defense’s frame‑up allegation for lack of clear evidence of malice or improper motive.

Supreme Court legal standard and holding

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the conviction, acquitting Lim on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing regulations require a demonstrable chain of custody to authenticate narcotics evidence: (1) seizure and marking by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover to the investigating officer; (3) turnover to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) turnover and submission by the forensic chemist to the court. The prosecution must supply a rational basis to conclude the item presented in court is the same item seized and that its integrity was preserved; when the seized item is minuscule and susceptible to planting or tampering, strict compliance is imperative.

Statutory framework: Section 21 and implementing rules

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR require immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of the accused (or representative/counsel), an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media; inventories must be signed and copies furnished. R.A. No. 10640 amended Section 21 to preserve a saving clause permitting non‑compliance only for justifiable grounds so long as integrity and evidentiary value are preserved. The Court reiterated that such non‑compliance must be specifically alleged, justified, and supported by sworn statements describing steps taken to preserve integrity.

Specific chain‑of‑custody and procedural failures identified

The Supreme Court identified multiple, interrelated deficiencies that undermined the chain of custody and raised reasonable doubt: (1) the required third‑party witnesses (elected official and DOJ/ media representative) were not present and did not sign the inventory; (2) conflicting testimonies on where the inventory and marking occurred (the arresting officer said markings were made at the house; other team members said inventory/marking and photos were done at the PDEA office); (3) only photographs taken at the PDEA office were in the record, none from the house; (4) the inventory receipt lacked signatures of the accused and the required public or DOJ/media witnesses; (5) the team’s effort to secure witnesses was inadequately proven and the claim of “unsafe” conditions was unpersuasive given the size and control of the team and absence of evidence of immediate danger; and (6) a break in the chain when the arresting officer could not identify the person who received the specimens at the crime laboratory, creating a gap that permitted possible substitution or tampering — especially critical given the minuscule 0.02‑gram quantity.

Burden of proof, presumption of regularity and consequences

The Court reiterated constitutional principles: the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and cannot rely on the defendant’s failure to disprove allegations. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties does not replace demonstrable compliance with statutory procedures; it arises only where the record shows conformity with required official conduct. Where the prosecution fails to establish the statutory chain of custody (or to justify non‑compliance under the saving clause), reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti results and compels acquittal.

Application of jurisprudence and precedents

The decision applied settled precedents requiring a strict and demonstrable chain of custody for narcotics evidence (Mallillin and subsequent cases), explained the policy rationale (preventing planting, tampering, or substitution), and reiterated that marked deviations or unexplained lapses negate the presumption of regularity and the prosecution’s ability to meet its burden. The Court underscored that buy‑bust operations are typically planned and therefore allow time to secure the required witnesses; failure to do so w

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 231989)

Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 839 Phil. 598; En Banc, G.R. No. 231989, promulgated September 4, 2018.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals' February 23, 2017 Decision in CA‑G.R. CR HC No. 01280‑MIN.
The Court of Appeals had affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City, September 24, 2013 Decision in Criminal Case Nos. 2010‑1073 and 2010‑1074.
RTC had found Romy Lim y Miranda (Lim) guilty of violating Sections 11 and 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002); the Supreme Court reversed and set aside that conviction and ordered Lim’s acquittal for reasonable doubt.
Acquittal ordered with immediate release unless lawfully held for another cause; directive to issue final judgment and furnish copies to specified government offices and to disseminate decision to all trial courts.

Charges and Informations

Criminal Case No. 2010‑1073: Information (October 21, 2010) charged Lim with illegal possession of Methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), alleged on or about October 19, 2010, ~10:00 p.m., Cagayan de Oro City — possession of one heat‑sealed transparent plastic sachet containing shabu, total weight 0.02 gram, contrary to Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Criminal Case No. 2010‑1074: Information (same date) charged Lim and his stepson Eldie Gorres y Nave (Gorres) with illegal sale of shabu, alleged sale on or about October 19, 2010, ~10:00 p.m. — one heat‑sealed sachet of shabu, weight 0.02 gram, in consideration of Php500 buy‑bust money (serial No. FZ386932), contrary to Section 5, Paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

Pleas, Detention and Parties

Lim and Gorres pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
Both were detained in the city jail during the joint trial.
Prosecution witnesses included IO1 Albert Orellan, IO1 Nestle Carin, IO2 Vincent Orcales, and PSI Charity Caceres (Forensic Chemist).
Defense witness included Rubenia Gorres (Lim’s live‑in partner).

Prosecution Version — Sequence of Events and Evidence

At ~8:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, PDEA Regional Office X received a CI report that “Romy” was selling drugs in Zone 7, Cabina, Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City; Regional Director Lt. Col. Edwin Layese directed a buy‑bust operation.
Team briefing assigned IO2 Orcales (team leader), IO1 Orellan (arresting officer/back‑up/evidence custodian), IO1 Carin (poseur‑buyer); buy‑bust money (P500) prepared with serial number entered in PDEA blotter; Coordination Form and other documents prepared.
Team left regional office ~15 minutes before 10:00 p.m., arrived target area ~10:00 p.m.; IO1 Carin and CI approached Lim’s house while IO1 Orellan and others observed from a few meters away.
CI knocked; Gorres invited them in. Inside, Lim sat on sofa watching television. CI/poseur‑buyer introduced herself as a buyer; Lim nodded and told Gorres to get one inside the bedroom.
Gorres retrieved a small medicine box from bedroom; Lim took one heat‑sealed sachet of white crystalline substance (shabu) from the box and gave it to IO1 Carin; IO1 Carin paid Php500 buy‑bust money and executed a missed call to signal arrest.
Arresting team immediately entered the house, announced they were PDEA agents, ordered Lim and Gorres to put hands on heads and squat; IO1 Orellan recited Miranda rights and conducted body searches.
IO1 Orellan, upon frisking Lim, found buy‑bust money and a transparent rectangular plastic box (~3x4 inches) in his pocket containing a plastic sachet of white substance; IO1 Carin turned over to IO1 Orellan the sachet she bought.
IO1 Orellan marked the two plastic sachets while in the house (markings BB AEO 10‑19‑10 and AEO‑RI 10‑19‑10 with his initials/signature).
No media, barangay, or DOJ representatives arrived to witness inventory despite efforts to secure them; inventory was later made at PDEA Regional Office; the Inventory Receipt was not signed by Lim or Gorres nor by an elected public official or DOJ/media representative.
Pictures of accused and evidence were taken (records show pictures taken at the PDEA office).
Buy‑bust money turned over to fiscal’s office during inquest.
On October 20, 2010, IO1 Orellan and IO1 Carin delivered Lim, Gorres and the drug specimens to Regional Crime Laboratory Office 10; IO1 Orellan retained possession of sachets from regional office to crime lab.
PSI Charity Caceres and PO2 Bajas received letter‑requests and two heat‑sealed sachets; PSI Caceres obtained urine samples from Lim and Gorres and conducted screening and confirmatory tests.
Chemistry Reports: DTCRIM‑196 and 197‑2010 — urine tests: Lim positive for shabu, Gorres negative; Chemistry Report D‑228‑2010 — chromatographic exam: both seized sachets positive for shabu.
PSI Caceres placed her own marking on the cellophane containing the two sachets and turned them to the evidence custodian.

Defense Version — Sequence of Events and Claims

At ~10:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, Lim was sleeping in the bedroom and Gorres watching television when men in civilian clothing jumped over the gate, forced the door open, and entered.
The men pointed firearms, boxed Gorres’ chest, slapped his ears, handcuffed him, and asked where the shabu was; Gorres invoked innocence and identified Lim as asleep in the bedroom.
The men kicked the bedroom door; Lim was surprised with a gun pointed to his head; both were made to sit on a bench and were apprised of Miranda rights.
Lim and Gorres were brought to the PDEA Regional Office and the crime laboratory; during inquest, Lim admitted ownership of the two sachets without counsel because he feared imprisonment, but both denied involvement in drugs at the time of arrest.
Lim had previously been arrested by PDEA agents and later acquitted in a prior case.
Rubenia Gorres was at her sister’s house the night of the arrests; she returned next day, noticed the door open and lock destroyed, took pictures of the damage and offered these exhibits at trial.

Trial Court (RTC) Findings and Ruling (Sept. 24, 2013)

RTC found Lim guilty of illegal possession (Crim. Case No. 2010‑1073) and illegal sale (Crim. Case No. 2010‑1074); sentenced for possession: imprisonment 12 years & 1 day to 13 years, fine Php300,000; for sale: life imprisonment and fine Php500,000.
RTC acquitted Gorres for lack of sufficient evidence of conspiracy and cited Gorres’ negative urine test.
RTC credited prosecution testimony (notably IO1 Orellan and IO1 Carin) over Lim’s denials, describing IO1 Carin’s testimony as simple, straightforward, and credible.
RTC accepted the chain of custody with “moral certainty” that PDEA operatives preserved evidentiary integrity despite absence of third‑party witnesses at inventory.

Court of Appeals Ruling (Feb. 23, 2017)

CA affirmed the RTC Decision.
CA held that prosecution established elements of illegal sale and possession, including the conduct of a valid buy‑bust and the corpus delicti.
CA found that prosecution witnesses testified to each link in the chain of custody and thus the identity and integrity of seized drugs were not compromised.
CA applied the presumption of regularity in performance of official duty and did not find clear and convincing evidence of improper motive or malice by officers.

Issues on Appeal Before the Supreme Court

Whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly established under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR, including marking, inventory, turnover to forensic chemist, and presentation in court.
Whether non‑compliance with Section 21(1) (presence of accused or representative/counsel, media/DOJ representative, and elected public official during physical inventory/photographing) was justified, and whether the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items were