G.R. No. 200026 - People vs. Delector

Alleged violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
Incident occurred on or about November 23, 2014 in Pasig City where the appellant allegedly sold two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a total of 0.06 gram of a white crystalline substance (found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride) to a police poseur buyer.

Alleged violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
Incident occurred on or about November 24, 2014 in Pasig City where the appellant allegedly had in his custody four heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a total of 0.12 gram of the same substance.

On November 22, 2014, PCI Renato Banas Castillo, Chief of Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group, received a tip from a confidential informant regarding the appellant’s involvement in illegal drug sales along C. Santos St., Brgy. Ugong, Pasig City.
A buy-bust operation was planned for the following day with PO1 Marvin Santos designated as the police poseur-buyer and provided marked money (two one hundred-peso bills).

On November 23, 2014, the buy-bust team coordinated at the barangay hall of Brgy. Ugong and proceeded to Appellant’s residence.
At the scene, PO1 Santos, accompanied by the confidential informant, approached the appellant who was seated outside his house.

During the encounter, the appellant received the marked money in exchange for two sachets which PO1 Santos placed in his pocket.
Subsequently, the team converged; the appellant was ordered to produce the remaining marked money and empty his pockets. Four additional plastic sachets were recovered.

Due to the sudden influx of onlookers, the team moved to the barangay hall of Brgy. Ugong.
At the barangay hall, the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items took place in the presence of Barangay Captain Engracio E. Santiago, Ms. Zenaida Concepcion (head of the Anti-Drug Abuse Council of Pasig City), and the appellant.
The evidence, consisting of six plastic sachets, was then turned over to the Pasig City Police Station and later sent to the Eastern Police District-Crime Laboratory Service where forensic analysis confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The appellant stated that upon arriving home from work on November 22, 2014, he was with his common-law spouse, Rosemarie Apinan.
Suddenly, four police officers entered his house and conducted a search, finding several sachets and two one hundred-peso bills on a table.
Appellant contended that after the inventory was signed in the presence of Barangay Captain Santiago, he was then arrested and taken to the police station.

Criminal Case No. 19752-D (illegal sale): Imposing life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000 with accessory penalties.
Criminal Case No. 19753-D (illegal possession): Imposing an indeterminate penalty ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 16 years plus a fine of P300,000 with accessory penalties.

The RTC relied primarily on the testimony of PO1 Santos, acknowledging an unbroken chain of custody of the evidence.

The chain of custody was properly preserved despite non-strict compliance with certain procedural requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 IRR.
The explanations by the police operatives regarding the absence of witnesses (specifically a DOJ and/or media representative) were considered justifiable under the facts of the operation.

Appellant raised the issue that the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR were not fully complied with, particularly the inventory and photographing requirements.
The primary contention was that the absence of the mandatory witnessing (DOJ or media representative) cast doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

Whether the non-compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR—specifically, the failure to secure the presence of both the DOJ and media representatives during the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized dangerous drugs—affected the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
Whether such non-compliance and the reliance solely on the presence of an elected public official (Barangay Captain Santiago) could justify the acquittal of the appellant due to the resulting reasonable doubt on the chain of custody of the evidence.
Whether justifiable grounds presented by the police operatives in explaining the absence of the required witnesses sufficed to preserve the probative value and admissibility of the evidence.