Case Digest (G.R. No. 250927)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 250927)
Facts:
Mario Nisperos y Padilla, G.R. No. 250927, November 29, 2022, the Supreme Court En Banc, Rosario, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Mario Nisperos y Padilla was charged by Information dated September 18, 2015 with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for the alleged sale on June 30, 2015 in Tuguegarao City of one heat-sealed sachet of suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 0.7603 gram to PO1 Michael B. Turingan, a poseur-buyer. The prosecution's narrative: hand-to-hand transfer of the sachet and buy-bust money, immediate arrest, recovery of marked buy-bust money, an on-scene inventory and marking, laboratory examination and a positive qualitative result.At trial the prosecution presented testimony that an inventory was conducted at the place of transaction in the presence of petitioner, DOJ representative Ferdinand Gangan and Barangay Captain Desiderio Taguinod, with the sachet later submitted to the crime laboratory and to forensic chemist PSI Alfredo Quintero. Petitioner testified denying the allegations and alleging chain-of-custody lapses. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, Tuguegarao City, convicted petitioner on March 13, 2018 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine; a motion for reconsideration was denied.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA‑G.R. CR‑HC No. 11472, affirmed the RTC decision on August 5, 2019 (modifying only that petitioner would not be eligible for parole) and denied reconsideration on November 7, 2019. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court (albeit the CA-imposed penalty being life, which normally requires an appeal to the CA); the Court excused the procedural defect and treated the petition as an ordinary appeal. The petition argued, inter alia, that the buy‑bust team failed to secure the mandatory insulating witnesses at or near the time and place of the arrest, that marking and immediate inventory were not performed, and that the chain of custody was broken.
The Supreme Court found material deviations: the DOJ representative arrived late so the inventory and marking were done about thirty minutes after the alleged seizure and the marking occurred during the inventory rather than immediately upon confiscation. The Court reversed the CA, held the chain of custody was unjustifiably broken, acquitted petitioner for reasonable doubt, and adopted guidelines on marking, inventory and the presence of insulating witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
Issues:
- Is the Court required to dismiss the petition for procedural deficiencies (appeal route, docket fee deficiency, lack of certified copies), or may it entertain it on the merits?
- Did the apprehending team comply with the chain of custody requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, specifically (a) the requirement that insulating witnesses be present "at or near" the place of apprehension so that inventory may be conducted "immediately after seizure and confiscation," and (b) the requirement that marking be done immediately upon confiscation?
- If there was noncompliance, did the prosecution prove justifiable grounds for deviation and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were nevertheless preserved?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)