G.R. No. 251741 - People vs. Chris John Custodio y Argote

On October 19, 2015, in Dumaguete City, Chris John Custodio y Argote a.k.a. "Bolongkoy" was charged with two counts: (a) illegal sale of one heat-sealed sachet containing 0.04 gram methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to PO3 Al Lester Avila, a poseur buyer, and (b) illegal possession of five heat-sealed sachets containing 3.07 grams of shabu.
The cases were filed as Criminal Case No. 2015-23224 (illegal sale) and Criminal Case No. 2015-23225 (illegal possession), and were raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Dumaguete City.
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and the cases were consolidated.

PO3 Al Lester Avila received a tip from a confidential informant regarding "Bolongkoy"'s drug selling activity.
A buy-bust operation was planned and coordinated with other police officers, PDEA, and DOJ representatives.
During the operation, at the agreed meeting place, Avila gave P300 (three P100 bills) to the accused-appellant who handed a sachet of suspected shabu.
Upon arrest, Avila frisked the accused and found five other sachets of shabu, two tin foils, two lighters, and additional money.
The seized items were marked with the accused’s initials, date, and distinguishing symbols to separate the items subject of the sale from those seized after arrest.
The team proceeded to the police office for inventory, photographing, and preparation of a request for laboratory examination.
Various police officers, DOJ representative, barangay official, PDEA agent, and crime laboratory personnel testified to the buy-bust operation, inventory, and lab examination.
The chemical examination confirmed that the items contained methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Accused-appellant testified that around 11:00 a.m., before the alleged buy-bust operation, police officers stopped, frisked, and took him to the police office without finding or presenting any drugs.
At the police office, the accused was photographed with items laid on a table and informed of the charges, which he denied.

On July 17, 2017, the RTC convicted the accused beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.
The court imposed life imprisonment and fines, and ordered confiscation and forfeiture of the seized items.
The court held that the chain of custody and evidentiary preservation of the seized items were properly observed and that the corpus delicti was positively identified.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on August 29, 2019.
The Supreme Court by Resolution on November 11, 2021 also affirmed, finding all elements of the offenses present and the chain of custody intact.

Accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 17, 2022, arguing the irregularity of the buy-bust operation and breach of chain of custody.
The argument centered on the absence of insulating witnesses during the inventory at the place of arrest.

The Supreme Court granted the Motion for Reconsideration.
It ruled that the first link in the chain of custody was broken because the inventory was conducted at the police office without sufficient justification.
The absence of justification for conducting inventory at the police office, rather than at the place of arrest, breached the chain of custody.
Subsequent compliance with inventory procedures and presence of witnesses did not cure the initial breach.
The Court cited People v. Casa emphasizing the necessity of justifying off-site inventory for warrantless seizures.
The Court emphasized protection of constitutional rights and warned courts to be vigilant in drug cases to prevent wrongful conviction.
Consequently, the accused-appellant was acquitted and ordered released immediately.

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165.

Whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly observed and preserved to maintain the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.

Whether the conduct of inventory and preparation of evidence at the police office instead of at the place of arrest violated procedural requirements affecting the chain of custody.