G.R. No. 243386 - People vs. De Castro y Santos

Two separate Informations were filed against accused Hilario De Castro y Santos alias “Dacoy” for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
Criminal Case No. 10-501 charged him with illegal possession of dangerous drugs (Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 0.12 gram contained in two plastic sachets).
Criminal Case No. 10-502 charged him with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs (Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 0.02 gram contained in one plastic sachet).
Upon arraignment De Castro pleaded not guilty to both charges.

On August 4, 2010, at approximately 2:00–3:00 a.m. in Muntinlupa City, a planned buy-bust operation was initiated following a tip that De Castro was selling shabu for P300.00.
The operation was conducted by police officers including PINSP Domingo J. Diaz (the ordering officer), PO3 Manuel Amodia (the apprehending officer and poseur-buyer), and PO2 Rondivar Hernaez (the back-up/arresting officer).
The police prepared necessary documents such as the Pre-Operational Report and Coordination Form, and secured the required buy-bust money (three genuine P100.00 bills).
At the target site, the officers identified a shirtless man who approached them; this man, later identified as De Castro, conducted a transaction by accepting the money, retrieving a small container with drug sachets, and executing a prearranged signal confirming the sale.
The contraband was seized, marked (with “HDC,” “HDC-2” and “HDC-3”), and later brought to the Crime Investigation Division Office (CID Office) for inventory and documentation.

Despite established protocols, the inventory of the seized drugs was not done immediately at the place of arrest.
The police officers, noting the potential for commotion, transferred the accused and the evidence to their police office, where the inventory was performed without the presence of the mandatory witnesses required by law (a representative of the Department of Justice, a media representative, and an elected public official).
Procedures stipulated by Section 21 of RA 9165 were not strictly followed, as the required witnesses were “called-in” after the seizure rather than being physically present during the initial inventory and photographing of the seized items.
The chain of custody documentation and the integrity of the evidence were thereby brought into question.

Detailed the stages of the buy-bust operation, from the tip-off to the actual physical seizure of the drugs.
Identified several key police officials and forensic personnel who handled the evidence, though many of their testimonies were dispensed with via stipulations.

Presented De Castro as the sole witness, contending that he was arrested under different circumstances, asserting that his apprehension occurred on 3 August 2010 rather than the time stated by police.
Claimed that he did not engage in the sale of illegal drugs and questioned the discrepancy in the timeline and the lacking presence of mandatory witnesses during the inventory process.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision on November 16, 2015, convicting De Castro on both counts after finding that the prosecution met its burden of proving the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s Decision in its ruling dated February 6, 2018, supporting the integrity of the evidence and presuming regular performance of the police officers despite minor procedural lapses.

Whether the elements of the crimes of illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the procedural lapses in the chain of custody and inventory requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.
Whether the police officers’ deviation from the mandated protocol, namely, the failure to immediately inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the necessary witnesses, undermined the evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.
Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties could override the constitutional presumption of innocence in the face of such procedural breaches.