People vs. Del Rosario

Non-compliance with the mandatory inventory and photograph requirements under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, coupled with unjustified breaks in the chain of custody, creates reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized drugs and compels acquittal. The saving clause does not apply where the prosecution fails to recognize the procedural lapses and offers no justifiable grounds for non-compliance.

On April 21, 2008, a confidential informant reported to SPO1 Apolonio Naredo that Raul Del Rosario was engaged in illegal drug activities at Barangay Pansol, Calamba City. Police Inspector Alex Marasigan formed a buy-bust team designating the confidential informant as the poseur-buyer. At approximately 11:00 p.m., the team proceeded to a billiard hall at Purok 7, Brgy. Pansol, where the buy-bust operation was conducted. The confidential informant handed marked money of P200.00 to Del Rosario in exchange for one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After the pre-arranged signal, SPO1 Naredo arrested Del Rosario, recovered the marked money, and conducted a preventive search that yielded three additional plastic sachets from the accused's pocket.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: On April 21, 2008, SPO1 Apolonio Naredo received a tip from a confidential informant that Raul Del Rosario was engaged in illegal drug activities at Barangay Pansol, Calamba City. Police Inspector Alex Marasigan formed a buy-bust team comprising SPO1 Naredo, SPO2 Melvin Llanes, PO2 Carpio, PO2 Arnel Sanque, the confidential informant (designated as poseur-buyer), and himself. At 11:00 p.m. that evening, the team proceeded to a billiard hall at Purok 7, Brgy. Pansol.

• The Transaction and Arrest: SPO1 Naredo positioned himself approximately five meters from the confidential informant. He witnessed the confidential informant hand P200.00 in marked money to appellant, who in turn gave the confidential informant one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Upon the pre-arranged signal, SPO1 Naredo approached, introduced himself as a police officer, arrested appellant, and recovered the marked money. SPO1 Naredo then conducted a preventive search, instructing appellant to empty his pockets, yielding three additional small plastic sachets with white crystalline substance. The confidential informant handed over the sachet purchased from appellant. SPO1 Naredo marked the buy-bust sachet as "ACN-RND" and the three sachets from appellant's pocket as "ACN-RND-1," "ACN-RND-2," and "ACN-RND-3."

• Post-Arrest Handling: Appellant was brought to the police station where the buy-bust team prepared a request for laboratory examination. SPO1 Naredo, accompanied by PO1 Richard Cruz (not a member of the buy-bust team), turned over the seized items to the crime laboratory, where they were received by one SPO1 Agustin. No documentary evidence of this turnover or receipt was presented.

• Forensic Examination: Forensic Chemist Lalaine Ong Rodrigo examined the specimens and prepared Chemistry Report No. D-174-08, confirming all four sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). FC Rodrigo placed her own markings on the sachets after examination. The parties stipulated to FC Rodrigo's testimony, but the stipulations omitted details regarding the condition of the seized items during her custody and any precautions taken to prevent tampering.

• Defense Version: Del Rosario testified that at around 8:00 p.m. on April 21, 2008, two unidentified men entered his hut, restrained him, and searched the premises. Finding nothing, they forced him into a passenger jeep, took him to a house, then to the barangay hall where he was made to sign a document, and later to another house where he was shown a plastic sachet and money. He was eventually detained at the city hall and informed of the charges. His neighbor, Rosita Mangundayao, corroborated that she saw two men enter appellant's hut around 11:00 p.m., search it, and handcuff him.

• RTC Findings: The RTC gave full credence to SPO1 Naredo's testimony, applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, and dismissed the defense of denial as a standard ploy. The RTC found all elements of both offenses established and held that the integrity of the seized evidence was preserved despite the absence of physical inventory and photographing.

• CA Findings: The CA affirmed, ruling that the chain of custody remained unbroken from SPO1 Naredo to the crime laboratory and that non-compliance with Section 21 did not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence.

• Non-Compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165: Appellant argued that the arresting officers failed to conduct any physical inventory of, or to photograph, the seized evidence. Consequently, the mandatory presence of representatives from the Department of Justice, media, and an elected public official during inventory and photographing was also not secured.

• No Justifiable Ground for Non-Compliance: Appellant maintained that the prosecution did not recognize or offer any justification for the procedural lapses. The urgency of the buy-bust operation was not established, and there was no showing that the tip from the confidential informant had been verified.

• Breaks in the Chain of Custody: Appellant contended that the prosecution failed to establish the second, third, and fourth links in the chain of custody, specifically from the turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist, and from the forensic chemist to the court.

• Elements of the Offenses Established: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the prosecution duly proved all elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Mere possession of a prohibited drug was sufficient to convict absent any satisfactory explanation, particularly since the seized items tested positive for shabu.

• Unbroken Chain of Custody: The OSG maintained that an unbroken chain of custody was shown — from SPO1 Naredo's recovery of the sachets from appellant, to the markings he placed after arrest, to the request for laboratory examination, to PO1 Cruz's turnover to the crime laboratory, and to FC Rodrigo's examination yielding positive results. According to the OSG, the integrity and identity of the seized evidence were sufficiently preserved.

• Section 21 Compliance: Whether the prosecution proved compliance with the mandatory inventory, photographing, and witness requirements under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and whether non-compliance was justified under the saving clause.

• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution established all four links in the chain of custody sufficient to guarantee the identity and integrity of the seized drugs presented in court.

• Section 21 Compliance: There was a total lack of compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The buy-bust team conducted no physical inventory, took no photographs, and did not secure the presence of any of the required witnesses — representatives from the DOJ, media, and an elected public official — at the time of seizure and confiscation. The saving clause was inapplicable because the prosecution never recognized the procedural lapses and offered no justifiable grounds for non-compliance. Under Gamboa v. People, the saving clause applies only where the prosecution acknowledges the lapses and thereafter explains the justifiable grounds, while also demonstrating that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Here, the prosecution made no such acknowledgment or justification.

• Chain of Custody: The prosecution failed to establish the second, third, and fourth links in the chain of custody. The second link — turnover from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer — was not proven because the investigating officer was never identified by name; SPO1 Naredo merely stated that "the police officers" prepared the request for laboratory examination without specifying who handled the seized items. The third link — delivery of the seized drugs to the forensic chemist — was inadequately shown: no details were provided as to how and when the seized items were transferred from SPO1 Naredo to PO1 Cruz (who was not a member of the buy-bust team), and no documentary evidence of SPO1 Agustin's receipt or handling of the items was presented. The fourth link — submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court — lacked testimonial or documentary evidence on how FC Rodrigo preserved the items while in her custody and their condition until court presentation; the stipulations on her testimony omitted these crucial details, mirroring the deficiency in People v. Gutierrez. These cumulative breaks, together with the Section 21 violations, cast serious uncertainty over the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, compelling acquittal.

• Chain of Custody Rule under R.A. No. 9165 — The prosecution must establish the duly recorded, authorized movements and custody of seized drugs at each stage: from confiscation, to receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination, to presentation in court. The four links that must be proven in a buy-bust situation are: (1) seizure and marking by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover to the investigating officer; (3) turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist; and (4) turnover and submission by the forensic chemist to the court. Every person who handled the exhibit must describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in their possession, the condition when received and delivered, and the precautions taken to prevent alteration or tampering.

• Section 21 Compliance as Substantive Law — The procedure under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be treated as a mere procedural technicality. The required witnesses (representatives from the DOJ, media, and an elected public official) must be present at or near the time of the warrantless arrest, as their presence at the point of seizure and confiscation insulates against police evidence-planting and belies any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug.

• Saving Clause Doctrine (Gamboa v. People) — Non-compliance with Section 21 does not ipso facto render the seizure void if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity of the evidence is preserved. However, the saving clause applies only where the prosecution has recognized the procedural lapses and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds, after which it must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved. Absent such acknowledgment and justification, the saving clause cannot be invoked.

• "The procedure enshrined in Sec. 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects."

• "The time of the warrantless arrest is 'the point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug.'"

• "The saving clause applies only where the prosecution has recognized the procedural lapses on the part of the police officers or PDEA agents, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds; after which, the prosecution must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved."

• "When a court cannot be assured that the drugs presented as evidence are exactly what the prosecution purports them to be, it cannot be assured that any activity or transaction pertaining to them truly proceeded, as the prosecution claims they did. Thus, no conviction can ensue."

• "As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be."

• People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018 — Cited for the rule that the required witnesses under Section 21 must be present at or near the time of apprehension, as their presence at the point of seizure insulates against evidence-planting.

• Gamboa v. People, 799 Phil. 584 (2016) — Controlling precedent on the application of the saving clause: the prosecution must first recognize the procedural lapses and offer justifiable grounds before the saving clause may be invoked.

• Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) — Foundational case defining the chain of custody rule and the evidentiary requirements for each link.

• People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010) and People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212 (2015) — Enumerated the four links in the chain of custody that the prosecution must establish in buy-bust operations.

• People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017 (2017) — Cited for the rule that failure to identify the investigating officer to whom seized items were turned over raises doubts as to the preservation of integrity and evidentiary value.

• People v. Gutierrez, 614 Phil. 285 (2009) — Applied where inadequate stipulations on the forensic chemist's testimony failed to account for the condition and custody of seized items, resulting in acquittal.

• People v. Asaytuno, Jr., G.R. No. 245972, December 2, 2019 — Cited for the proposition that when the court cannot be assured of the identity of the drugs presented as evidence, no conviction can ensue.

• Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs) — The offense charged in Criminal Case No. 15745-2008-C; the prosecution alleged appellant sold 0.01 gram of shabu to a poseur-buyer.

• Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) — The offense charged in Criminal Case No. 15746-2008-C; the prosecution alleged appellant possessed 0.09 grams of shabu.

• Section 21, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations — Mandates that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative/counsel, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official, who must all sign the inventory and receive a copy. The failure to strictly comply does not render the seizure void if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Applied as the controlling procedural safeguard that the buy-bust team completely disregarded.

Leonen (Chairperson), Carandang, and Zalameda, JJ., concurred. Gaerlan, J., was on leave.