G.R. No. 235658 - People vs. Del Rosario y Niebres

The case involves People of the Philippines vs. Raul Del Rosario y Niebres, cited as G.R. No. 235658, decided on June 22, 2020, by the Third Division.
Appellant Raul Del Rosario y Niebres was charged with violations under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 – the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 – specifically:

In Criminal Case No. 15745-2008-C, the Information alleged that on April 21, 2008, at Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City, appellant sold one (1) sachet containing 0.01 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur buyer.
In Criminal Case No. 15746-2008-C, the Information charged appellant with possessing 0.09 grams of the same substance, also on the same day and location.

A confidential informant tipped off the police regarding the drug activities of the appellant at Barangay Pansol.
A buy-bust team, led by Senior Police Officer I (SPO1) Naredo and including other officers and the poseur buyer, conducted the operation at approximately 11:00 p.m.
During the operation at a billiard hall, the confidential informant handed marked money (₱200.00) to the appellant in exchange for a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance.
After the transaction, SPO1 Naredo arrested the appellant, recovered the marked money, and conducted a preventive search yielding three plastic sachets.

The seized plastic sachets were marked by SPO1 Naredo (with identifiers such as “ACN-RND” and its variants) immediately after recovery.
The evidence was then turned over by Police Officer I (PO1) Cruz to the crime laboratory, where a forensic chemist (Lalaine Ong Rodrigo) conducted the examination using Chemistry Report No. D-174-08, confirming the presence of shabu.
Notably, during the seizure and turnover process, there was a lack of physical inventory and photographic evidence, as required by procedural rules.

Two unidentified men allegedly entered his hut, restrained and searched him, and subsequently forced him into a jeep for transfer.
He contended that the entire sequence of events, including the subsequent handling of evidence, was part of a frame-up.

Testimony from his neighbor, Rosita Mangundayao, corroborated that she observed two men searching his hut and saw him being handcuffed, although she did not hear any incriminating conversation.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Branch 37, in its July 22, 2015 Judgment, found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt on both charges and imposed:

Life imprisonment plus a fine of ₱500,000.00 for illegal sale (Criminal Case No. 15745-2008-C).
An indeterminate imprisonment (minimum of 12 years and one day to a maximum of 14 years) plus a fine of ₱300,000.00 for illegal possession (Criminal Case No. 15746-2008-C).

The RTC upheld the reliability of SPO1 Naredo’s testimony and rejected the defense’s frame-up allegations.
The Court of Appeals (CA) in its February 22, 2017 Decision affirmed the RTC’s ruling, finding that despite noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the chain of custody was effectively preserved.

Appellant appealed on the ground that the necessary procedural requirements of Sec. 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 were not complied with, specifically pointing to the absence of physical inventory, photographs, and the presence of mandatory witnesses during the seizure.
He further argued that the breaks in the chain of custody compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that the overall chain of custody—from seizure to the lab examination—remained intact and reliable.

Whether the guilt of Raul Del Rosario y Niebres for the offenses charged can be proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the procedural lapses in handling the seized evidence.
Whether the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165—specifically, the absence of a physical inventory and photographs, as well as the non-appearance of required witnesses—renders the evidence inadmissible.
Whether the apparent breaks in the chain of custody, particularly in the transfer of the seized items among the officers and to the forensic laboratory, undermine the integrity and identity of the evidence.