Case Summary (G.R. No. 250927)
Procedural History
Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment. The RTC found all elements of illegal sale beyond reasonable doubt, convicted him to life imprisonment plus fine, and denied reconsideration. The CA affirmed with the sole modification barring parole. Petitioner sought certiorari review before the Supreme Court.
Chain of Custody Requirements
Under RA 9165 § 21, as amended by RA 10640, the initial custodial link requires that “immediately after seizure and confiscation,” the apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items (including controlled precursors and paraphernalia) in the presence of:
- The accused or person from whom items were seized (or counsel/representative)
- An elected public official
- A DOJ National Prosecution Service representative (or media representative)
Inventory and photography must be conducted at the place where a search warrant is served, or in warrantless seizures, at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, whichever is practicable. Marking of items must occur immediately upon seizure, in the presence of the accused.
Inventory Witness Presence
The RTC inventory occurred 30 minutes after the seizure. Barangay Captain Taguinod was present at 11:30 AM, but DOJ representative Gangan arrived only at 12:00 PM. His absence delayed the inventory until both insulating witnesses were present, violating the immediacy requirement.
Marking of Seized Item
The poseur-buyer did not mark the sachet upon confiscation. Marking was deferred until the inventory, contrary to Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1 (2002) and PDEA guidelines, which require marking immediately and in the presence of the accused.
Laboratory Examination and Evidence Admission
After inventory, the marked sachet was transferred to PDEA’s crime laboratory, where PSI Quintero conducted qualitative tests, confirming methamphetamine hydrochloride. The laboratory certificate and the physical specimen were later admitted in trial.
Issues on Chain of Custody Compliance
Petitioner contended:
- Witnesses were not present “at or near” the place of arrest to witness inventory immediately.
- Marking occurred belatedly, compromising the integrity of the evidence.
- The prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody under RA 9165 § 21 and its IRR.
Analysis of Inventory Delay and Witness Presence
The Court emphasized that, under the 1987 Constitution, warrantless arrests must still comply with statutory safeguards. RA 9165’s chain of custody rule aims to preserve the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. Inventory and photographing must follow “immediately after seizure and confiscation,” and mandatory witnesses must be “readily available” to observe the process. Delaying inventory by 30 minutes due solely to the tardy arrival of the DOJ representative—which the buy-bust team could have anticipated—constituted unjustifiable deviation.
Decision and Legal Reasoning
The Supreme Court En Banc found:
- The marking of the seized sachet was not done immediately upon confiscation, breaching the f
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 250927)
Facts
- On June 30, 2015, petitioner purportedly sold one heat-sealed sachet containing 0.7603 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) to PO1 Michael B. Turingan acting as poseur-buyer
- The transaction occurred along Soriano Street, Pallua Norte, Tuguegarao City, pursuant to information from a confidential informant
- The poseur-buyer handed marked buy-bust money (two genuine ₱500 and two fake ₱1,000 bills) in exchange for the sachet
- Members of the PNP 2nd Regional Public Safety Battalion, in coordination with PDEA, effected petitioner’s warrantless arrest and seized the drugs and money
- Inventory and marking were conducted thirty minutes after the arrest in the presence of petitioner, DOJ representative Ferdinand Gangan, and Barangay Captain Desiderio Taguinod
- The seized sachet was photographed, marked, turned over to P02 Edmar Delayun (crime lab), and examined by PSI Alfredo Quintero, yielding a positive qualitative test for methamphetamine hydrochloride
Procedural History
- Regional Trial Court (Branch 1, Tuguegarao City) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 on March 13, 2018, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine
- His motion for reconsideration was denied on April 23, 2018
- Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification (petitioner not eligible for parole) on August 5, 2019 (CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11472) and denied reconsideration on November 7, 2019
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45; Supreme Court excused procedural defects and treated it as an ordinary appeal
Issues
- Whether the buy-bust team complied with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640
- Whether the required insulating witnesses were present “at or near” the place of apprehension to witness the inventory immediately after seizure and confiscation
- Whether marking, inventory, and photography of the seized drugs w