Case Digest (G.R. No. 240431)
Facts:
On September 30, 2009, PDEA agents in Region XI conducted a buy-bust operation in Barangay Tibungco, Davao City after a confidential informant reported that Marlon Bob Caraniagan Sanico was selling marijuana. IO1 Rommel Adrian dela Pena acted as poseur-buyer, and marked money was given; upon receipt of the payment, the accused produced three small items rolled in newspaper which were claimed to be marijuana, after which the poseur-buyer removed his bull cap as the signal and the accused fled into nearby water. The buy-bust team initially marked and sealed the confiscated items, recorded them in the PDEA blotter, and the following day conducted an inventory in the presence of witnesses from the DOJ, media, and an elected barangay official, after which the specimens were submitted for laboratory examination that yielded a positive result for marijuana.
The RTC, Branch 13, Davao City convicted the accused of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. On appeal, the CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed, holding that the chain of custody was established. The accused then sought reversal, asserting non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 regarding immediate inventory and photographing with required witnesses at the time of seizure.
Issues:
- Whether the apprehending team complied with the Section 21 requirements of R.A. 9165 on immediate inventory and photographing in the presence of the required witnesses.
- Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved despite the alleged non-compliance.
- Whether the non-compliance could be excused under the saving clause in the IRR of R.A. 9165.
Ruling:
The Court reversed and set aside the CA decision and acquitted the accused for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and ordered his immediate release unless he was held for another lawful cause.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to justify the delay in the inventory and photographing conducted only the next day, despite the requirement that such steps be done immediately after seizure and confiscation and with the required witnesses physically present during the inventory and photographing process.
Ratio:
The Court ruled that Section 21 is central to establishing the identity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, since the dangerous drugs seized constitute the substance of the crime and must be presented in court as the same drugs recovered from the accused. It emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden to prove valid grounds for any deviation and must do so through concrete evidentiary explanation, not mere assertions.
Here, the arresting officer’s stated reason—that the required witnesses could not be contacted on the same day—did not meet the standard of a justifiable ground that would warrant postponing the inventory and photographing. The Court found the lapse of time too substantial, especially given the small quantity of the seized drugs, and concluded that strict compliance was not achieved in a buy-bust operation where advance preparation made compliance feasible.
Doctrine:
- In prosecutions under R.A. 9165, the identity of the seized drug as the corpus delicti must be proven with moral certainty through preservation of the chain of custody.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)