Primary Holding

The conviction of Mario Nisperos y Padilla for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is reversed and set aside due to the prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody, specifically regarding the presence of mandatory witnesses at the place of apprehension for the immediate inventory of seized drugs, leading to reasonable doubt.

Background

Petitioner Mario Nisperos y Padilla was charged with selling methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented evidence of a pre-arranged buy-bust conducted by police officers based on information from a confidential informant. The defense contested the legality of the operation, particularly the chain of custody of the seized drug.

Facts

• 1. A buy-bust operation was conducted by PNP operatives based on information about a certain "Junjun" selling shabu.
• 2. PO1 Michael Turingan was designated as poseur-buyer and transacted with Petitioner Mario Nisperos y Padilla, who was identified as "Junjun".
• 3. Petitioner sold one heat-sealed sachet containing 0.7603 grams of shabu to PO1 Turingan for PHP 3,000.00 buy-bust money.
• 4. Petitioner was immediately arrested after the transaction.
• 5. Inventory was conducted at the place of transaction, approximately half an hour after the seizure, with Barangay Captain Desiderio Taguinod and DOJ representative Ferdinand Gangan as witnesses.
• 6. DOJ representative Gangan arrived at 12 noon, about 30 minutes after the alleged sale transpired at 11:30 AM.
• 7. PO1 Turingan marked the sachet during the inventory itself as the item was unmarked when first presented to the witnesses.
• 8. The seized drug tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• 9. Petitioner denied the allegations, claiming fabrication and improper chain of custody.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The purported witnesses to the inventory were not present at the time of the warrantless arrest.
• 2. The buy-bust team failed to make an immediate initial marking of the seized evidence.
• 3. The prosecution failed to prove the proper chain of custody.
• 4. The buy-bust team failed to strictly follow the supposed chain of custody, including failure to immediately give the seized drug to the investigator.
• 5. The buy-bust team failed to give a copy of the Receipt/s of Property Seized to the petitioner and the purported witnesses.
• 6. The apprehending team failed to strictly follow the chain of custody rule as laid down in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, and its IRR.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal sale of shabu.
• 2. The identity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug were properly preserved by the apprehending team.
• 3. The required witnesses were present at or near the place of apprehension.

Issues

• 1. Whether the presence of the mandatory witnesses during the inventory was compliant with the chain of custody rule, specifically if they needed to be present at the time of the warrantless arrest.
• 2. Whether the buy-bust team unjustifiably deviated from the chain of custody rule.
• 3. Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were compromised.
• 4. Whether the petitioner's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, acquitting him.
• 2. The Court emphasized that in warrantless arrests during buy-bust operations, the required witnesses must be present "at or near" the place of apprehension to comply with the statutory rule of immediate inventory.
• 3. The Court clarified that witnesses need not witness the arrest or seizure itself, but must be readily available to witness the ensuing inventory.
• 4. In this case, the DOJ representative arrived 30 minutes after the seizure, which is deemed an unjustifiable delay, as the inventory was conducted at the place of seizure itself and not in a remote location.
• 5. The buy-bust team was blamed for not ensuring the timely availability of all required witnesses.
• 6. The failure to have all mandatory witnesses present at the immediate inventory, compounded by the belated marking of the seized drugs, compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, thus creating reasonable doubt and warranting acquittal.

Doctrines

• 1. Chain of Custody Rule: The duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from seizure to presentation in court, essential to preserve integrity and evidentiary value of corpus delicti. Failure to comply, if unjustified, compromises integrity and can lead to acquittal.
• 2. Corpus Delicti: The body or substance of the crime, in drug cases, it is the dangerous drug itself, whose integrity and identity must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• 3. Presumption of Innocence: An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies with the prosecution to overcome this presumption.
• 4. Verba Legis (Plain Meaning Rule): In statutory construction, the plain meaning of the words in a statute should be followed if the language is clear and unambiguous.
• 5. Doctrine of Necessary Implication: What is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as what is expressed.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "In warrantless arrests on account of buy-bust operations, the required witnesses must be present 'at or near' the place of apprehension, i.e., within the vicinity, in order to comply with the statutory rule that the inventory should be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation."
• 2. "Since they may be present 'near' the place of apprehension, they need not witness the arrest itself or the seizure or confiscation of the drugs or drug paraphernalia. They only need to be readily available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory."
• 3. "The mandatory witnesses must be present at or near the place of apprehension in order for the immediate conduct of the inventory."
• 4. "Consistency with the 'chain of custody' rule requires that the 'marking' of the seized items – to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence – should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation."

Precedents Cited

• 1. People v. Supat: Cited to argue that the presence of witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation is essential to belie doubt about the source and integrity of seized drugs.
• 2. People v. Tomawis: Cited to emphasize that "immediately after seizure and confiscation" requires witnesses to be present at the time of apprehension, being at or near the intended place of arrest for immediate inventory.
• 3. People v. Sanchez: Cited regarding when and in whose presence marking of seized items must be conducted, highlighting the immediacy requirement.
• 4. People v. Dela Cruz: Cited as past instance where procedural defects were glossed over when petition was meritorious.
• 5. Tolentino v. People: Cited regarding the corpus delicti and chain of custody.
• 6. People v. Moner: Cited in relation to the chain of custody and its purpose.
• 7. People v. Siaton: Cited regarding marking as the first stage in chain of custody.
• 8. People v. Alejandro: Cited regarding the purpose of marking to prevent switching or contamination.
• 9. Tayug Rural Bank v. Central Bank of the Philippines: Cited to support the force and effect of administrative rules and regulations.
• 10. Victorias Milling Company, Inc. v. Social Security Commission: Cited to show that rules and regulations partake of the nature of statute.
• 11. People v. Estabillo: Cited to explain the role of insulating witnesses, which is to confirm the identity and integrity of seized items, not to identify the drugs themselves.
• 12. Abilla v. People: Cited as example where witness arriving late rendered their presence ineffective to prevent tampering.
• 13. People v. Luna: Cited for the rationale that insulating witnesses are needed at seizure time to foreclose pernicious planting practices.
• 14. People v. Castillo: Cited to emphasize the futility of late witness presence and the need for witnesses at the crucial first link.
• 15. People v. Del Rosario: Cited for a case where chain of custody lapse led to acquittal.
• 16. Valencia v. People: Cited regarding detailing the third link of the chain of custody related to forensic chemist delivery.
• 17. People v. Ubungen: Cited for a case where lack of testimony on drug management led to chain of custody failure.
• 18. People v. Holgado: Cited for the four aspects protected by chain of custody requirements.
• 19. Pimentel v. People: Cited regarding noncompliance leading to failure to establish identity and integrity and acquittal.
• 20. People v. Sipin, People v. Saragena, People v. Paz, People v. Mamangon, People v. Miranda: Cited to show that strict compliance may not always be possible and justifiable grounds may excuse non-compliance under IRR.
• 21. People v. Almorfe, People v. De Guzman: Cited regarding the burden of prosecution to explain non-compliance and preservation of integrity.
• 22. People v. Asaytuno: Cited to argue that buy-bust operation being prearranged requires adequate preparation for witness presence.
• 23. People v. Ramos: Cited to show that inadequate preparation is not a justifiable ground for non-compliance.
• 24. Sio v. People: Cited to argue non-compliance is unjustifiable when operations are planned.
• 25. People v. Comoso: Cited to highlight court's circumspection for minuscule amounts of drugs and doubt if chain of custody is not established.
• 26. People v. Abdulah: Cited against flimsy justifications for non-compliance, rejecting location-based excuses.
• 27. People v. Macud: Cited to emphasize that eradicating drug menace cannot trample constitutional rights.
• 28. People v. Que: Cited for fidelity to chain of custody due to narcotics being easily mistaken for everyday objects and prone to planting.
• 29. People v. Lim: Cited to show significant increase in drug case dismissals due to chain of custody non-compliance.
• 30. People v. Lung Wai Tang, People v. Jaafar: Cited to show continuous Court dismay on drug cases.
• 31. Dela Cruz v. People, People v. Aruta: Cited in concurring opinion about warrantless seizures and unreasonableness.
• 32. People v. Ortega, People v. Luminda, People v. Salenga, People v. Silayan: Cited in concurring opinion for recent cases on warrantless seizure and unreasonableness.
• 33. People v. Santos, Jr.: Cited in concurring opinion about buy-bust operations and judicial sanction.
• 34. People v. Ale: Cited in concurring opinion about dangers of planted evidence in drug cases and need for vigilance.
• 35. People v. Banding: Cited in concurring opinion regarding chain of custody violation.
• 36. People v. Mendoza, People v. Sood, People v. Advincula, People v. Sta. Cruz, People v. Tampan, People v. Angeles, Abilla v. People, People v. Martin: Cited in concurring opinion regarding cases which upheld chain of custody.
• 37. People v. Guarin, People v. Anicoy, People v. Baradi, People v. Gutierrez, People v. Maylon, People v. Lacson: Cited in concurring opinion as examples where chain of custody was complied with.
• 38. People v. Casa: Cited in concurring and dissenting opinions regarding the venue of inventory and taking of photographs.
• 39. Mallillin v. People, People v. Veedor, Jr., People v. Bartolini, Derilo v. People, People v. Kamad, Largo v. People, People v. Rivera, People v. Sipin, People v. Caiz: Cited in concurring and dissenting opinions concerning aspects of chain of custody.
• 40. People v. Villalon: Cited in dissenting opinion as example of chain of custody and corpus delicti.
• 41. People v. Battung, People v. Olarte: Cited in dissenting opinion regarding difficulty of compliance and weight of drug amount.
• 42. Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China v. Imperial, Borromeo v. Mariano, Arenas v. City of San Carlos: Cited in dissenting opinion regarding the purpose and function of proviso.
• 43. Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court: Cited in concurring opinion for judicial interpretation beyond literal reading.
• 44. Miranda v. Arizona: Cited in concurring opinion as example of adapting law enforcement to new rulings.
• 45. Graham vs. State: Cited in dissenting opinion about likelihood of tampering and fungibility of evidence.
• 46. In Re Winship, U.S. v. Reyes, People v. Cui, Jr., People v. Esquivel, People v. Khor, People v. Sagana, People v. Monte, People v. Oliva, People v. Boco, Catuiran v. People, People v. O'Cochlain, People v. Pagaduan, People v. Garcia, People v. De Guzman, People v. Saunar, Evardo v. People: More cases cited throughout concurring and dissenting opinions but not specifically detailed above.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) - Violation charged.
• 2. Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (as amended by R.A. No. 10640) - Chain of Custody Rule.
• 3. Republic Act No. 10640 - Amendment to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
• 4. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 - Implementing rules for chain of custody.
• 5. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court - Petition for Review on Certiorari.
• 6. Rule 124, Section 13(c) of the Rules of Court - Rules on Appeal.
• 7. Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution - Due Process Clause.
• 8. Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution - Presumption of Innocence.
• 9. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution - Right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• 10. Section 94 of RA 9165 - Power to issue Implementing Rules and Regulations.
• 11. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code - Period for delivery of detained persons to judicial authorities.