Facts:

The case involves Ernesto Silayan y Villamarin (appellant) who was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The events leading to the case unfolded on June 15, 2012, in Barangay Pag-asa, Binangonan, Rizal. Police Officers Rommel Bilog and Mark Riel Canilon, accompanied by an informant, conducted surveillance in response to a tip about illegal drug activities in the area. The informant identified Silayan, who was drinking with two companions. During the surveillance, Silayan allegedly handed a small plastic sachet to the informant in exchange for marked money. After confirming the sale, the police officers executed a buy-bust operation, arresting Silayan and his companions. The marked money was confiscated from Silayan, and the sachet was recovered from the informant. The sachet was later confirmed to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) through laboratory examination.

In his defe...

Facts:

Surveillance and Buy-Bust Operation:

• On 15 June 2012, PO1 Rommel Bilog (PO1 Bilog) and PO1 Mark Riel Canilon (PO1 Canilon), along with an informant, conducted surveillance in Barangay Pag-asa, Binangonan, Rizal, based on a tip about illegal drug trade in the area.
• The informant pointed out Ernesto Silayan y Villamarin (Silayan), who was drinking with two companions. The informant introduced a "scorer" to PO1 Bilog and PO1 Canilon. Silayan handed a small plastic sachet to the "scorer," confirming the illegal drug transaction.
• PO1 Bilog and PO1 Canilon returned to the police station to prepare for the buy-bust operation. PO1 Bilog marked two P100 bills with "LOG-1" and "LOG-2."

Execution of the Buy-Bust Operation:

• The buy-bust team, including the informant, returned to Barangay Pag-asa. The informant and PO1 Bilog approached Silayan, who asked, "Sino yang kasama mo? Kakampi ba yan?" The informant replied, "Oo pare kakampi to, mayroon ba tayo dyan." Silayan then asked, "Mayroon magkano iskorin mo?" and the informant replied, "Kasang dos lang pare, tag hirap eh."
• Silayan handed a plastic sachet to the informant, and PO1 Bilog handed the marked money to Silayan. PO1 Bilog signaled the completion of the transaction by scratching his head, identified himself as a police officer, and arrested Silayan. PO1 Canilon arrested Silayan's two companions.
• PO1 Bilog confiscated the marked money from Silayan and recovered the plastic sachet from the informant. He marked the sachet with "RNB 6/15/12" on-site and informed Silayan and his companions of their constitutional rights before bringing them to the police station.

Processing of Evidence:

• PO1 Bilog prepared the Inventory and Request for Laboratory Examination of the seized evidence. Pictures were taken of Silayan, his companions, and two other male persons.
• PO1 Bilog personally delivered the plastic sachet to the Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for examination. Forensic Chemist Beuane Villaranza conducted a qualitative examination, which confirmed that the 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance in the sachet was methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

Defense of Silayan:

• Silayan claimed that he was merely buying a cigarette when he was invited to drink. After five minutes, a tricycle arrived, and people in civilian clothes alighted and arrested him. He alleged that he was mauled at the barangay hall and later brought to the Binangonan Police Station, where he and his companions were charged with selling illegal drugs. His defense was corroborated by his two companions and cousin, Dave Villamarin.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs:

   • For a successful prosecution under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti (illicit drug) was presented as evidence; and (3) the buyer and seller were identified.
   • In this case, the second element was lacking due to the failure of the police to comply with Section 21(1) of RA 9165, which requires the presence of the accused, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, and an elected public official during the inventory of seized drugs.

2. Non-Compliance with Section 21(1) of RA 9165:

   • The prosecution failed to prove that the police complied with the procedural requirements of Section 21(1). The inventory was conducted without the presence of the required witnesses, and there was no justifiable ground for this non-compliance.
   • The testimony of PO1 Bilog was ambiguous regarding the location of the inventory, and it was not denied that the required witnesses were absent. The prosecution also failed to explain why the witnesses were not present or to show that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance.

3. Presumption of Regularity:

   • The prosecution relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers. However, the Court held that this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution's failure to prove compliance with the law.

4. Acquittal Based on Reasonable Doubt:

   • The Court emphasized that the conviction of an accused must be based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, not the weakness of the defense. In this case, the blatant failure to comply with Section 21(1) of RA 9165 created reasonable doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, warranting Silayan's acquittal.

5. Guidelines for Future Cases:

   • The Court reiterated the mandatory guidelines set out in People v. Lim to ensure compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, including the need for sworn statements detailing compliance, justifications for non-compliance, and steps taken to preserve the integrity of seized items.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court reversed the CA's decision and acquitted Silayan due to the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ordered Silayan's immediate release unless he was being held for another lawful cause.