G.R. No. 182153 - Tung Ho Steel Enterprises Corp. vs. Ting Guan Trading Corp.

On November 12, 2009, a confidential informant tipped the San Fernando City Police about an impending illegal drug transaction involving Rolando Ternida y Munar.
A buy-bust team was constituted, consisting of designated officers: PO2 Ricardo Annague (assigned as the poseur-buyer), PO3 Paul Batnag (back-up), and Inspector Quesada, among others.
On November 17, 2009, at approximately 10:40 p.m. along Quezon Avenue in San Fernando City, the team identified and intercepted Ternida.
Ternida was approached by PO2 Annague and, after a brief interaction regarding the drug sale price (P1,000.00), handed over one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a crystalline substance purported to be shabu in exchange for the money.
Immediately following the transaction, PO3 Batnag signaled to effect Ternida’s arrest. A Certificate of Inventory was then prepared, and the seized item was sent to a crime laboratory where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Republic Act No. 9165, particularly Article II, Section 21, mandates that seized drugs must be physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused and/or his representative, media, DOJ, or local public officials.
The apprehending team failed to photograph the seized drugs at the time of seizure, a deviation from the prescribed chain-of-custody procedure.
The chain-of-custody lapse raised doubts regarding the identity and integrity of the evidence, especially considering that only a minuscule amount of shabu (0.0402 gram) was allegedly involved.

Ternida pleaded not guilty at arraignment, contesting the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the manner of his arrest.
During trial, the prosecution presented PO2 Annague’s testimony as establishing the chain-of-custody despite the absence of a photographic inventory.
Ternida argued that the failure to photograph the drugs compromised the evidentiary integrity of the corpus delicti, making it unclear whether the substance tested actually came from him.
Additional inconsistencies were raised by Ternida, including discrepancies among the arresting officers regarding the presence of witnesses and the coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, along with the non-presentation of the official physical sciences report and the Certificate of Coordination.

The Regional Trial Court found Ternida guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a substantial fine.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision in its October 30, 2013 ruling, dismissing Ternida’s appeal and upholding the conviction.

Ternida elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contending that the failure to observe the mandatory photographic inventory procedure and the resultant chain-of-custody lapses created reasonable doubt on the evidence’s integrity.
The Solicitor General, representing the People, countered that the procedural lapse was immaterial, relying on established precedents that deemed such deviations administrative and irrelevant to the substantive crime of illegal drug sale.
The Supreme Court scrutinized these arguments, emphasizing that without justifiable grounds for the procedural lapse, the doubt cast on the evidence’s integrity must be addressed.

Whether the failure of the apprehending officers to photograph the seized drugs, as required by Article II, Section 21 of RA 9165, undermined the chain-of-custody and, consequently, the evidentiary integrity of the corpus delicti.
Whether the prosecution’s reliance on the presumption of regularity and past case law was sufficient to overcome the chain-of-custody lapse in proving Ternida’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether noncompliance with the chain-of-custody protocols, without adequate justification, justifies the reversal of a conviction in cases involving a minuscule quantity of dangerous drugs.