G.R. No. 254259 - People vs. Cacho y Gabriel

The appellant, Macmac Bangcola y Maki, was charged with two separate crimes under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002):

The criminal case stemmed from events that occurred on or about June 20, 2014, in Marikina City, where the appellant was allegedly involved in a drug transaction and found in possession of marked plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride.

A confidential informant reported that the appellant was engaged in illegal drug activities near Barangay Tumana, Marikina City.
A buy-bust team was assembled, led by Police Inspector Jerry Flores with Senior Police Officer I (SPO1) Deogracias Basang acting as the poseur-buyer.
Details of the transaction:

SPO1 Basang was provided with two marked Five Hundred Peso (₱500.00) bills as buy-bust money.
The pre-arranged signal for consummation of the sale was the lighting of a cigarette by SPO1 Basang.

SPO1 Basang identified the appellant after entering an alley with the informant.
The appellant reportedly handed a small plastic sachet from a brown-striped pouch to SPO1 Basang in exchange for the buy-bust money.
The team promptly arrested the appellant after the transaction was signaled by the lighting of the cigarette.

A red body bag
The brown-striped pouch
Marked buy-bust money and cash totaling ₱1,990.00
Thirteen additional plastic sachets allegedly containing methamphetamine hydrochloride

Due to poor lighting and a commotion created by the appellant’s relatives, the inventory, marking, and photograph-taking of the evidence were conducted at the Barangay Hall of Tumana instead of the place of arrest.
During the inventory, witnesses present included Councilor Ronnie AcuAa, a media representative (Cesar Barquilla of Remate tabloid), the appellant, and police officers.

The seized sachet marked “MB-BUYBUST 6/20/14” weighing 0.20 gram and the additional sachets (totaling 34.12 grams) were submitted for laboratory testing.
Forensic chemist PCI Libres later confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in the specimens.

The required witness presence stipulated under Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 was incomplete because a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) was absent during the inventory and photograph-taking.
The chain of custody documentation was deficient, including an incomplete Chain of Custody Form that did not clearly reflect the transition from seizure to forensic examination.

The RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes charged.
In the case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the appellant received life imprisonment with an additional fine of ₱500,000.00.
In the case of illegal possession, he was sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years with an additional fine of ₱300,000.00.
The RTC justified the change in the place of inventory by the exigencies at the scene and maintained that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction, giving credence to the evidence presented – notably the testimony of SPO1 Basang and the forensic report of PCI Libres.
It maintained that the procedural lapses did not break the chain of custody or affect the evidentiary value, despite the absence of a DOJ representative.

The appellant challenged his conviction by raising issues on the proper compliance with the chain of custody rules and the overall sufficiency of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Supplemental briefs and arguments were filed by both sides highlighting the deficiencies or justifications regarding the evidence handling procedures.

Whether the guilt of the appellant for the crimes charged—illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs—has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the prosecution properly complied with the chain of custody requirements of Section 21 of RA No. 9165, particularly the mandatory presence of four witnesses (including a DOJ representative) during the inventory, marking, and photographing of the seized evidence.
Whether the procedural lapses, especially the improper or incomplete chain of custody, created sufficient doubt regarding the integrity of the confiscated drugs, thus undermining the prosecution’s evidence.