G.R. No. 218255 - People vs. Bugna y Britanico

The accused, Marvin Balbarez y Hernandez, was identified as a significant drug personality in Los Baños, Laguna, ranking second among the top ten drug personalities.
Reports indicated that he was involved in selling shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) in Barangay Malinta, prompting police action.
A planned buy-bust operation was organized by the municipal police on April 23, 2011, with coordination from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

The operation involved a poseur-buyer as the police asset and police officers PO2 Michael Angelo Palanca, PO1 Ruperto Lapitan, Jr., and PO1 Jeremias Ramos acting as the apprehending officers.
During the operation, the poseur-buyer conducted a simulated transaction by handing boodle money to the accused, which prompted Marvin to deliver a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance.
Upon execution of a pre-arranged signal (flicking the sachet), the buy-bust team immediately intervened, identified themselves as police officers, and arrested Marvin.

After the arrest, PO1 Ramos received the sachet marked as "MHB1" from the poseur-buyer.
A subsequent search by PO2 Palanca recovered two additional plastic sachets from Marvin, which were marked by PO1 Ramos as "MHB2" and "MHB3."
Photographs of the seized items were taken at the police station, and the contraband was then forwarded to Police Chief Inspector Dona Villa Huelgas for laboratory testing, which confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Criminal Case No. 18225-2011-C for the sale and delivery of a controlled dangerous substance (illegal sale of methamphetamine).
Criminal Case No. 18228-2011-C for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

Marvin denied the charges, providing an alibi that he was driving his tricycle with two passengers when flagged down by PO1 Ramos.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him on both counts on May 30, 2016.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction for illegal sale (Criminal Case No. 18225-2011-C) but affirmed his conviction for illegal possession (Criminal Case No. 18228-2011-C) on July 11, 2018.

Critical issues arose regarding the chain of custody and compliance with the procedural requirements during the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs.
Questions emerged whether the absence of required insulating witnesses and the failure to follow proper protocol rendered the evidence (the seized drugs) inadmissible.

Whether the proper chain of custody was maintained from the seizure, inventory, turnover to the forensic laboratory, and submission to the court.
Whether the deviation from the mandatory procedural requirements, such as the presence of insulating witnesses during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs, compromised the integrity of the evidence.

Whether the apprehending team complied with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, which require the immediate physical inventory, photographing, and proper documentation of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, an elected public official, and a media/DOJ representative.
Whether any failure to secure the attendance of required insulating witnesses was justified by showing that earnest and reasonable efforts were made under the circumstances.

Whether the broken link in the chain of custody, due to the non-compliance with specific procedural safeguards, was sufficient to undermine the prosecution’s evidence.
Whether the evidentiary gap created by the failure to detail how the seized items were maintained, transferred, and ultimately examined precluded the prosecution from proving the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.