People vs. De Leon

In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, the prosecution must establish with moral certainty every link in the chain of custody of the seized drug from the time of seizure to presentation in court, and where strict compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is not achieved, the prosecution must provide justifiable grounds for such non-compliance; failure to discharge either burden warrants acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt.

On April 10, 2007, PDEA Regional Office 2 conducted a buy-bust operation against Victor De Leon at his residence in Mabini, Santiago City, following a tip from an informant that De Leon, who was listed on the PDEA drug watch list, was selling shabu. The operation was led by SPO2 Domingo Balido, with IO1 Lirio T. Ilao designated as poseur-buyer armed with two marked ₱500 bills. During the transaction, De Leon allegedly delivered one plastic sachet of white crystalline substance to IO1 Ilao in exchange for the marked money. When the backup team entered the premises to effect the arrest, De Leon escaped through a window, evading capture. Two other individuals found using drugs inside the house were arrested instead.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: At approximately 1:00 p.m. on April 10, 2007, the PDEA buy-bust team proceeded to appellant's residence at P-3 Looban, Mabini, Santiago City. IO1 Ilao and the informant approached the house while backup officers maintained surveillance from approximately 50 meters away. Upon opening the door, appellant allegedly asked how much shabu the poseur-buyer intended to purchase. IO1 Ilao responded "worth ₱1,000.00" and handed over two marked ₱500 bills. Appellant allegedly gave IO1 Ilao one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and stated he would repack another sachet in his room. IO1 Ilao executed a pre-arranged "miscall" signal to the backup team. Upon the team's entry, appellant escaped through a window, preventing his arrest. Two other men found using drugs inside the house were apprehended instead.
• Conflicting Accounts of Custody: Material inconsistencies marred the prosecution's evidence regarding the handling of the seized drug. IO1 Ilao testified that she maintained exclusive custody of the purchased sachet from the conclusion of the operation until she turned it over to IO1 Sanchez at the PDEA office in Tuguegarao City. Conversely, IO1 Asayco and IO1 Sanchez testified that their investigator, SPO1 Danilo Natividad, took possession of all seized items at the scene, including the sachet sold to IO1 Ilao.
• Disputed Marking Procedures: The prosecution witnesses provided contradictory accounts regarding the marking of the evidence. IO1 Asayco testified that the marking occurred at appellant's house immediately after the operation. In contrast, IO1 Ilao testified that the marking with their respective initials ("LTI," "SDS," "DGA") was conducted at the PDEA office in Tuguegarao City.
• Procedural Lapses in Inventory: The inventory of the seized item was conducted without the presence of any of the mandatory witnesses required under Section 21 of RA 9165. No representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), or any elected public official was present to sign the inventory. Although appellant had escaped, his mother and other relatives were present at the scene, yet no attempt was made to secure a representative from among them to witness the inventory. Furthermore, no photograph of the seized item was taken, and no explanation was provided for this omission.

• Failure of Chain of Custody: Appellant contended that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the alleged dangerous drug with moral certainty, as required by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The conflicting testimonies regarding who took custody of the drug and where the marking was performed created fatal gaps in the chain.
• Lack of Justification for Non-Compliance: Appellant argued that the prosecution offered no justifiable reason for the failure to conduct the inventory in the presence of the required witnesses (DOJ representative, media representative, elected official) and for the absence of photographic documentation, rendering the integrity of the corpus delicti doubtful.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The prosecution maintained that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were satisfactorily established: the poseur-buyer purchased shabu from appellant, and the transaction was witnessed by the buy-bust team. The actual sale was deemed completed upon delivery of the drug and receipt of the marked money, notwithstanding appellant's subsequent escape.
• Adequate Chain of Custody: Respondent argued that the chain of custody rule was substantially complied with, and that strict compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21 is not essential when the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, as in this case.

• Chain of Custody Compliance: Whether the prosecution established the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug in accordance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
• Justification for Procedural Lapses: Whether the prosecution provided justifiable grounds for the non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements, particularly the absence of required witnesses during the inventory and the lack of photographic evidence.

• Chain of Custody: The chain of custody was not established. The four links in the chain—(i) seizure and marking by the apprehending officer, (ii) turnover to the investigating officer, (iii) turnover to the forensic chemist, and (iv) turnover to the court—were compromised by irreconcilable contradictions in the testimony of the PDEA agents. The discrepancy as to whether IO1 Ilao or SPO1 Natividad had custody of the drug, and whether marking occurred at the scene or at the office, broke the chain and created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the substance presented in court.
• Justification for Non-Compliance: No justifiable ground was provided for the failure to secure the presence of a DOJ representative, media representative, or elected public official during the inventory. The prosecution's attempt to justify the absence of an elected official by citing operational security concerns was insufficient and did not excuse the other absences. The complete lack of photographic documentation, likewise unexcused, further undermined the integrity of the evidence.
• Acquittal: Because the prosecution failed to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti and failed to justify its non-compliance with the mandatory procedures, the constitutional duty to acquit arose, as guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

• Chain of Custody Rule — The chain of custody is defined as the recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping, and finally to presentation in court for destruction. It is both crucial and critical in convicting an accused for violations of RA 9165 to ensure that the evidence presented is the same substance seized from the accused and that it has not been tampered with or substituted.
• Four Links in the Chain of Custody — The prosecution must prove the following links: (i) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the drug from the accused by the apprehending officer; (ii) the turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (iii) the turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for examination; and (iv) the turnover by the forensic chemist to the court.
• Strict Compliance and Justifiable Grounds Exception — While strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not always be possible, the prosecution bears the burden of proving justifiable grounds for any non-compliance. Mere procedural lapses without valid explanation create reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the seized drugs.
• Immediate Marking Requirement — Marking must be done immediately upon seizure in the presence of the apprehended violator to set apart the seized item from other materials, serving as a reference point for subsequent handlers and preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug.

• "Chain of custody[, or] the recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs x x x from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction, is both crucial and critical in convicting an accused for any violation of RA 9165."
• "The Court has repeatedly stressed that it is the prosecution's onus to prove every link in the chain of custody - from the time the drug is seized from the accused, until the time it is presented in court as evidence; and where the prosecution fails to strictly comply with the procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, it must give justifiable ground for its non-compliance."
• "Generally there are four links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug: (i) its seizure and marking, if practicable, from the accused, by the apprehending officer; (ii) its turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (iii) its turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (iv) its turnover by the forensic chemist to the court."
• "Marking must be done immediately upon the seizure of the drug and in the presence of the apprehended violator of the law. The prompt marking is necessary in order that the subsequent handlers of the seized drug may use it as reference point, as the same sets apart the item from other materials from the moment it is confiscated until its disposal after the court proceedings."
• "True, strict compliance with the requirements under Section 21, Article II, RA 9165, may not, at all times, be possible; still, the prosecution must justify its non-compliance with such requirement. Here the prosecution utterly failed to prove any justification for such non-compliance."

• People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017 — Cited for the definition of chain of custody and the prosecution's burden to prove every link therein; also cited for the requirement that marking must be done immediately upon seizure.
• People v. Dumagay, G.R. No. 216753, February 7, 2018 — Cited for the definition of chain of custody.
• People v. Hementiza, G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017 — Cited for enumerating the four links in the chain of custody that the prosecution must establish.
• People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121 (2013) — Cited for the principle that marking must be done immediately upon seizure in the presence of the accused to preserve evidentiary integrity.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — Defines and penalizes the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs. The provision under which the appellant was charged.
• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Mandates the procedure for custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, requiring immediate physical inventory and photography in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the DOJ, and any elected public official; also requires submission to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory within 24 hours.

Bersamin, C.J., Gesmundo, J., and Hernando, J.

N/A (Jardeleza, J. was on official leave).