G.R. No. 220456 - People vs. Acub y Arakani

On or about February 10, 2005, during a buy-bust operation in Ayer Village, Zamboanga City, a confidential informant tipped off police about a drug transaction involving accused-appellant Gajir Acub y Arakani, also known as “Asaw.”
Senior Police Officer (SPO1) Amado Mirasol received the tip and coordinated with Chief Police Inspector Ibrahim Jambiran to conduct a buy-bust operation targeting Acub.

Chief Inspector Jambiran deployed PO2 Ronald Cordero as a poseur-buyer and assigned PO3 Ajuji as back-up.
A marked P500.00 bill was prepared and utilized as consideration during the operation.
The operatives, accompanied by a confidential informant, located Acub, who was then observed transacting a sale involving a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.0188 gram of a white crystalline substance (later identified as methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu).
After the exchange, the police signaled the consummation of the sale with a pre-arranged signal as PO2 Cordero grabbed the suspect’s arm and identified himself as a police officer.

Immediately after the transaction, PO2 Cordero marked the seized sachet with his initials and transferred custody to PO3 Arlan Delumpines, who in turn also marked the sachet and prepared it for laboratory examination by filing a request with the Regional Crime Laboratory Office.
The chain of custody involved multiple steps: initial seizure at the scene, a subsequent marking/processing at the police station, and eventual laboratory testing by Inspector Manuel, who confirmed the presence of shabu.
Required safeguards under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (as amended) – such as physical inventory, photograph of the seized item in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media or National Prosecution Service, and an elected public official – were not strictly observed.

Acub, a pedicab driver, testified that at the time of the incident he was at home resting after accompanying his wife to pawn her earrings, and later only left to buy food.
He claimed that while he was out, he was forcibly abducted from his home by two men and one woman who restrained and intimidated him, leading to a subsequent, allegedly unauthorized, search of his house.
His wife, Intan, corroborated his version, recounting that police officers in civilian clothes initially entered their home without a search warrant and later returned with additional personnel who handcuffed and beat him.

At trial in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City, the prosecution presented testimonies of three police officers to establish the elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
The RTC, relying on the presumption of regularity in the police officers’ conduct and noting Acub’s lack of prior disagreements with the officers, convicted him for violation of Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s conviction despite noting that the procedural requirements under Section 21 were not strictly complied with, basing its finding on the preserved integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu.
Accused-appellant raised multiple issues on appeal regarding the incomplete observance of mandated procedures—such as failure to prepare an inventory, obtain photographs in the presence of required witnesses, and secure the required presence of an elected public official or representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media—which he argued resulted in a substantial gap in the chain of custody.

The defense argued that the marked money was not adequately presented as corroborative evidence and questioned whether the buy-bust operation was properly conducted given the absence of a pre-operation report or blotter.
It was emphasized that the forensic procedure was compromised when Inspector Manuel admitted he did not personally receive the laboratory request and the Chemistry Report bore the signature of another individual.
The cumulative procedural lapses raised doubts about the integrity and identity of the seized sachet of shabu.

The central issue was whether the prosecution’s failure to adhere strictly to Section 21 of RA 9165, without providing justifiable grounds, created a substantial gap in the chain of custody sufficient to vitiate the evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court which had to decide if the noncompliance warranted the application of the saving clause or mandated an acquittal for the accused.

Did state agents strictly comply with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, which mandate immediate inventory, photography, and the presence of designated witnesses during seizure?
If not, were the departures from these procedures justifiably explained by the prosecution?

Given the noncompliance, was the chain of custody of the seized sachet of shabu preserved to a degree sufficient to ensure its integrity and evidentiary value?
Could the absence of proper inventory and documentation have allowed tampering, substitution, or planting of evidence?

Does the saving clause in Section 21, which provides that noncompliance under justifiable grounds may not render evidence inadmissible, apply in this case?
Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that any deviations from strict compliance were justified and did not compromise the integrity of the seized item?

Was the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly relying heavily on the testimony of one officer (PO2 Cordero) and omitting other crucial testimonies (e.g., that of the confidential informant), sufficient to establish Acub's guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Is the mere presumption of regularity in police conduct enough to overcome the substantial gaps created by the failure to strictly comply with procedural safeguards?