G.R. No. 211206 - Rey vs. Anson

An Information was filed charging Alan Banding y Ulama with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
The offense charged involved the sale, trade, and distribution of a dangerous drug, specifically 4.35 grams of a white crystalline substance identified as shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride).
Banding entered a plea of not guilty at arraignment, prompting a trial.

The operation was initiated on a tip-off received by Police Officer 2 Ofelia Inway regarding the illegal drug activities of a person known as “Al.”
A buy-bust team was activated with designated roles: PO2 Inway as the poseur-buyer, SPO4 Fernandez as the arresting officer, and additional backup officers.
The team met the informant at a Mercury Drug Store branch in Barangay Lagro, Quezon City, where Banding appeared and the buy-bust transaction took place.
During the transaction, PO2 Inway exchanged boodle money for a transparent plastic sachet containing the drug, after which she signaled for the immediate arrest of Banding.

Immediately following the seizure, PO2 Inway marked the item with the code “AB-20-09-10” and later took it to Camp Karingal, Quezon City, for physical inventory.
At the police station, the seizure was turned over to PO3 Corona who, in the presence of Banding, the rest of the team, and a media personnel, conducted the inventory and took photographs.
An official inventory receipt was prepared, but it contained a clerical discrepancy: it described the seized item as marijuana instead of shabu.
The seized item was then submitted for laboratory examination, yielding chemistry reports that identified the substance as shabu.
Chief Inspector Rodis later reexamined the evidence, and her findings confirmed the laboratory results despite the delay in testing.

The prosecution relied on the testimonies of PO2 Inway, SPO4 Fernandez, PO3 Corona, and Chief Inspector Rodis to establish the chain of custody and authenticity of the evidence.
Banding testified in his defense that he was forcibly detained and coerced into participating in the transaction, claiming that he was abducted by armed persons.
Major discrepancies arose regarding:

The location and manner in which the inventory and photographing of the seized item were conducted (i.e., not at the scene of arrest but at Camp Karingal, a location several kilometers away).
The absence of an elected public official and a representative from the Department of Justice during the seizure and inventory process.
The delay (approximately seven months) in the reexamination of the seized item by Chief Inspector Rodis.
A case of clerical error where the inventory receipt misstated the substance’s identity.

The Regional Trial Court found Banding guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with a modification of the penalty, mandating life imprisonment without eligibility for parole.
Banding appealed, and the case was further elevated to the Supreme Court, which required the filing of supplemental briefs regarding the chain of custody and evidentiary discrepancies.

Whether the discrepancy between the inventory receipt (which labeled the seized item as marijuana) and the chemistry reports (which identified it as shabu) creates reasonable doubt as to the identity of the drug.
Whether the deviation from the mandatory procedure—specifically, the failure to conduct the inventory and photograph the seized item immediately at or near the scene of arrest—compromises the integrity of the chain of custody.
Whether the absence of an elected official and a representative from the Department of Justice during the inventory and photographing has a detrimental effect on the probative value of the evidence.
Whether the prosecution has met its burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite these procedural and evidentiary irregularities.