People vs. Librea

A conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs cannot stand where the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of custody, particularly when the person who delivered the specimen to the forensic laboratory was not part of the apprehending team and the circumstances of his possession were left unexplained.

On October 9, 2003, police officers conducted a buy-bust operation against Gerald Librea in Lipa City based on information from an asset-informant that he was actively pushing drugs. An informant acted as poseur-buyer, handing two marked one-hundred-peso bills to Librea and receiving a small plastic sachet in return. The informant turned the sachet over to SPO1 Alexander Yema, who, along with the other officers, approached, arrested Librea, and recovered the marked money. Librea denied the transaction, claiming he was merely waiting for food at his aunt's store when police arbitrarily arrested him and detained him.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: PChief Insp. Dante Novicio received information from an asset-informant that Librea was pushing drugs. After a test-buy validated the information, a buy-bust operation was conducted on October 9, 2003. The informant was provided with two ₱100 bills marked "DPN". The informant handed the marked bills to Librea and received a small plastic sachet. The informant then delivered the sachet to SPO1 Alexander Yema, who smelled it. Yema, Novicio, and PO1 Cleofe Pera approached, arrested Librea, and recovered the marked money from his possession.
• Post-Apprehension Procedures: At the police station, Yema marked the sachet with "ACY" and "GCL". PO1 Pera prepared the Inventory of Confiscated/Seized Items, which Librea refused to sign. The buy-bust team failed to photograph the confiscated item and did not secure the signature of a media or Department of Justice (DOJ) representative on the inventory.
• Appellant's Version: Librea testified that he was waiting for pancit at his aunt's store when police arrested him and detained him. He denied that a buy-bust operation took place and claimed he saw the inventory and plastic sachet for the first time during trial. His aunt corroborated his testimony.
• Chain of Custody Gap: The request for forensic examination, together with the specimen, was delivered to the laboratory by SPO4 D.R. Mercado at 11:15 AM on October 10, 2003. Mercado was not part of the buy-bust team, did not take the witness stand, and no explanation was offered as to how he came into possession of the specimen.

• Justification for Section 21 Non-Compliance: The prosecution justified the failure to photograph the confiscated sachet by claiming a photographer was unavailable and asserted that no DOJ or media representative arrived at the time of the operation.
• Presumption of Regularity: The Solicitor General adopted the arguments from the appellate court briefs, relying on the trial court's assessment of witness credibility and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers.

• Non-Presentation of Poseur-Buyer: Librea argued that his conviction was erroneous notwithstanding the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer.
• Irregularities in Police Duty: Librea maintained that the testimonies of the prosecution police witnesses should not have been given credence due to irregularities in the performance of their duties.
• Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Librea argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically assailing the buy-bust team's failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165, which requires the photographing of the confiscated item and the presence of a media and DOJ representative during the inventory.

• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drug to preserve its integrity and evidentiary value.
• Section 21 Compliance: Whether the failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 21, RA 9165 was fatal to the prosecution's case.

• Chain of Custody: The chain of custody was broken, warranting acquittal. The integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated item were not shown to have been preserved. While Yema marked the sachet at the police station, what was done to it afterwards remained unexplained. Crucially, the specimen was delivered to the laboratory by SPO4 Mercado, who was not part of the buy-bust team. No explanation was offered as to how Mercado came into possession of the specimen. Appellant's pre-trial admission of the laboratory report's authenticity did not extend to an admission that the specimen originated from him.
• Section 21 Compliance: Non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal provided there is justifiable ground and the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are properly preserved. However, because the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved, the procedural lapses could not be excused.

• Chain of Custody in Drug Cases — The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drug from seizure to presentation in court. Gaps in the chain, such as an unexplained intervention by a person not part of the apprehending team who delivers the specimen to the laboratory, compromise the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence and preclude a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Non-compliance with Section 21, RA 9165 — Non-compliance with the inventory and photography requirements under Section 21 is not fatal to a prosecution for illegal drugs, provided there is justifiable ground for such non-compliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.

• "Since SPO4 Castro appears not to be part of the buy-bust team, how and when did he get hold of the specimen examined by Police Inspector Eustaquio? Who entrusted the substance to him and requested him to submit it for examination? For how long was he in possession of the evidence before he turned it over to the PNP Crime Laboratory? Who else had access to the specimen from the time it was allegedly taken from appellants when arrested? These questions should be answered satisfactorily to determine whether the integrity of the evidence was compromised in any way. Otherwise, the prosecution cannot maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt."

• People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928 — Followed. Cited for the proposition that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground and the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved.
• People v. Ong, G.R. No. 137348 — Followed. Cited as controlling precedent where the person who submitted the specimen to the crime laboratory was not part of the buy-bust team and the circumstances of his possession were unexplained, thereby breaking the chain of custody.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Prohibits the sale, delivery, dispensation, distribution, or transportation of dangerous drugs. Librea was charged and initially convicted under this section for selling 0.04 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Prescribes the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, requiring the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the items in the presence of the accused, a media representative, and a DOJ representative. The buy-bust team failed to comply with these requirements.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion.