G.R. No. 185917 - Fredco Manufacturing Corp. vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College

The buy-bust operation was conducted on July 18–19, 2015 in Pasig City, specifically at Villa Evangelista St.
The operation was initiated after a confidential informant provided information regarding Gerald being a notorious drug pusher at the stated location.
The police, led by PCI Renato B. Castillo of the SAID-SOTG, formed a team that included PO1 Rodrigo J. Nidoy, Jr. as the poseur-buyer and PO1 Jonathan B. Bueno as back-up.
At approximately 2:20 a.m. on July 19, 2015, the team proceeded to the location with the confidential informant guiding them to the house associated with Gerald.

Accused-appellants Andidato P. Mamarinta (alias “Dato”) and Jack A. Batuan (alias “Malupiton”) were encountered standing in front of the house.
The informant identified the parties as cohorts of Gerald and initiated the interaction by inquiring about the availability of shabu.
Mamarinta displayed four heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu, and handed one sachet to PO1 Nidoy, Jr.
Following a pre-arranged signal by PO1 Nidoy, Jr. (scratching his head), both police officers advanced on the scene; Mamarinta and Batuan were arrested immediately.
During the arrest, PO1 Bueno ordered Batuan to present the contents of his pocket, from which a sachet and the buy-bust money (noted by Nidoy’s marking) were recovered.

Immediately after the seizure, the apprehending officers conducted a physical inventory of the seized evidence in the presence of accused-appellants and Barangay Kagawad Chester Guevarra, who was the only available representative at the scene.
The inventory section included:

The seized items were then turned over to police investigator PO1 Lodjie N. Coz for the preparation of the chain of custody form and a laboratory request.
The evidence was subsequently sent to the Eastern Police District-Crime Laboratory, where forensic chemist PSI Anghelisa S. Vicente examined the samples and confirmed that all tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed that during their arrest, they were subjected to irregularities including extortion demands (allegedly P100,000.00) for their release.
Mamarinta testified that he was at home, putting his child to sleep when armed men, tying his hands with a plastic rope, forcibly brought him to the police station.
Batuan similarly testified that he was at a nearby store when arrested by similarly uniformed officers.
The prosecution relied on the testimonies of PO1 Nidoy, Jr. and PO1 Bueno, considered more credible by the RTC, to establish the chain of custody despite a noted absence of representatives from the media and/or the National Prosecution Service.
The RTC and subsequently the Court of Appeals (CA) found that the chain of custody was substantially complied with based on available evidence and the officers’ explanations regarding the absence of required witnesses.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City convicted the accused-appellants on separate counts:

For selling shabu penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 – sentencing included life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
For possession of dangerous drugs penalized under Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 – an indeterminate imprisonment term ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 16 years and a fine of P300,000.00.

The CA affirmed the RTC’s judgment on July 26, 2018, holding that any procedural lapses in the chain of custody were negligible and did not affect the overall integrity of the seized evidence.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellants on the ground that the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 were substantially met despite certain deviations.

Specifically, whether the absence of representatives from the media or the National Prosecution Service during the inventory-taking affects the integrity of the evidence.
Whether the procedural lapses and failure to secure compulsory witnesses indeed render the chain of custody inoperative under the amended R.A. 10640.

Whether the application of Section 21 as amended by R.A. 10640 should be strictly enforced in establishing the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs, given that these criteria are essential to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.