Primary Holding

The conviction of Romy Lim y Miranda is reversed and set aside; he is acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to prove compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 concerning the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, specifically the absence of required insulating witnesses during inventory and the lack of justifiable grounds for such non-compliance, thereby failing to establish the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.

Background

Following a tip from a confidential informant (CI) regarding alleged drug selling activities by "Romy" in Cagayan de Oro City, agents from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office X planned and executed a buy-bust operation targeting the accused-appellant, Romy Lim y Miranda, at his residence.

Facts

• 1. Around 8:00 PM on October 19, 2010, PDEA agents received information about Lim's alleged drug activities.
• 2. A buy-bust team was formed, briefed, and prepared marked money (P500 bill) and coordination forms.
• 3. Around 10:00 PM, the team arrived near Lim's house; IO1 Carin (poseur-buyer) and the CI approached the house.
• 4. Gorres invited them in; Lim was watching TV. The CI introduced Carin as a buyer.
• 5. Lim allegedly nodded and told Gorres to get shabu from the bedroom.
• 6. Gorres returned with a medicine box; Lim took one sachet of shabu and gave it to IO1 Carin, receiving the P500 buy-bust money.
• 7. Carin signaled the team; IO1 Orellan and others entered, arrested Lim and Gorres, and informed them of their rights.
• 8. Orellan frisked Lim and recovered the marked money and a plastic box containing another sachet of shabu.
• 9. Orellan marked the two sachets (BB AEO 10-19-10 for the sale item, AEO-RI 10-19-10 for the possessed item) inside Lim's house.
• 10. Alleged efforts to secure media and barangay witnesses at the scene were unsuccessful.
• 11. Lim and Gorres were taken to the PDEA office; an Inventory Receipt was prepared but lacked signatures from Lim, Gorres, DOJ representative, media representative, and an elected official.
• 12. Photographs were taken at the PDEA office.
• 13. The next day, suspects and evidence were submitted to the crime lab; forensic chemist PSI Caceres confirmed both sachets contained shabu (0.02g each).
• 14. Lim tested positive for shabu use, while Gorres tested negative.
• 15. The defense claimed illegal entry, arrest, and planting of evidence by the PDEA agents.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. Accused-appellant Lim argued that the prosecution failed to establish the unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs as required by Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
• 2. Lim contended that the mandatory witnesses (representatives from DOJ and media, and an elected official) were not present during the physical inventory and photographing of the evidence.
• 3. Lim asserted that the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the non-compliance with the mandatory procedures.
• 4. Lim maintained that these procedural lapses compromised the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, creating reasonable doubt.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The People argued that all elements for illegal sale and possession were proven beyond reasonable doubt through the credible testimonies of PDEA agents.
• 2. The People asserted that a legitimate buy-bust operation was conducted and Lim was lawfully arrested.
• 3. The People invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the PDEA agents.
• 4. The People contended that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved despite minor procedural gaps.

Issues

• 1. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused-appellant Romy Lim for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.
• 2. Whether the prosecution complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 regarding the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
• 3. Whether there were justifiable grounds for the non-compliance with the witness requirement under Section 21.
• 4. Whether the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were preserved.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court acquitted Romy Lim based on reasonable doubt.
• 2. The Court found fatal non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, specifically the absence of the required insulating witnesses (DOJ rep, media rep, elected official) during the physical inventory and photographing immediately after seizure.
• 3. The justifications provided by the PDEA officers (late night, raining, unsafe location, distrust of barangay officials) were deemed insufficient and did not demonstrate "earnest efforts" to comply, especially for a pre-planned buy-bust operation.
• 4. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove both justifiable grounds for non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, thus failing to trigger the saving clause in Section 21.
• 5. This failure broke the chain of custody and cast doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti (the shabu).
• 6. The presumption of regularity cannot overcome the presumption of innocence when mandatory procedural safeguards are ignored without adequate justification.
• 7. The Court established a mandatory policy requiring officers' affidavits to state compliance/non-compliance with Section 21 and justifications, guiding prosecutors and courts in handling such cases.

Doctrines

• 1. Chain of Custody (R.A. 9165, Sec. 21): Requires meticulous documentation of the movement and custody of seized drugs from seizure to court presentation to ensure integrity and identity.
• 2. Corpus Delicti: The actual drug seized is the body of the crime in drug cases; its identity must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• 3. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The constitutional standard requiring the prosecution to establish guilt with moral certainty.
• 4. Presumption of Innocence: Accused are presumed innocent; the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution.
• 5. Presumption of Regularity: Official duty is presumed regularly performed, but this is disputable and cannot excuse non-compliance with mandatory laws like Sec. 21 or override the presumption of innocence.
• 6. Section 21 Requirements (Witness Rule): The presence of specific witnesses (DOJ, media, elected official under the original law) during inventory is mandatory for insulating the process from doubt.
• 7. Saving Clause (Sec. 21): Allows non-compliance only with (1) justifiable grounds and (2) proof that integrity/evidentiary value were preserved; both must be proven by the prosecution.
• 8. Earnest Effort Requirement: Police officers must demonstrate genuine and sufficient attempts to secure the presence of Section 21 witnesses; mere difficulty is not a justifiable ground.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR."
• 2. "In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items."
• 3. "If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared... the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case... Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation..."
• 4. "[M]ere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Mallillin v. People (576 Phil. 576 [2008]): Established the stringent requirements for authenticating non-unique evidence like drugs through an unbroken chain of custody.
• 2. People v. Ramos (G.R. No. 233744, Feb. 28, 2018): Emphasized that the prosecution must prove "earnest efforts" were made to secure required witnesses for Sec. 21.
• 3. People v. Sipin y De Castro (G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018): Highlighted the prosecution's duty to acknowledge and justify deviations from Sec. 21 procedures.
• 4. People v. Umipang (686 Phil. 1024 [2012]): Deemed mere statements of witness unavailability without explanation as flimsy excuses.
• 5. People v. Mendoza (736 Phil. 749 [2014]): Described the Sec. 21 witnesses as providing an "insulating presence" against evidence tampering. (Cited in concurrences).
• 6. Valencia v. People (725 Phil. 268 [2014]): Articulated the two requisites (justifiable ground + preserved integrity) for applying the Sec. 21 saving clause. (Cited in concurrences).
• 7. People v. Kamad (624 Phil. 289 [2010]): Held that the presumption of regularity is negated by procedural lapses. (Cited in concurrences).

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), Article II, Section 5 (Illegal Sale).
• 2. Republic Act No. 9165, Article II, Section 11 (Illegal Possession).
• 3. Republic Act No. 9165, Article II, Section 21 (Custody and Disposition - original version).
• 4. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, Section 21(a).
• 5. Republic Act No. 10640 (Amendment to Section 21, R.A. 9165).
• 6. Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, Section 1(b) (Definition of Chain of Custody).
• 7. Revised Penal Code, Article 125 (Mentioned regarding time constraints justification).
• 8. Rules of Court, Rule 112, Section 5 (Relevant to the new mandatory policy on probable cause determination).
• 9. 1999 Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Manual (PNPDEM) (Cited in Caguioa concurrence regarding internal police procedures).
• 10. 2013 Revised PNP Operational Procedures (Cited in Caguioa concurrence).
• 11. 2014 Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation (AIDSOTF Manual) (Cited in Caguioa concurrence).