People vs. Mariano

The prosecution's failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody and to comply with the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165 creates reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, warranting acquittal even where the elements of illegal sale and possession and the conduct of a legitimate buy-bust operation are otherwise proved.

The case arises from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Davao City police against accused-appellant Zoraida Mariano a.k.a. Nora and her co-accused on August 6, 2011, in front of NCCC Supermarket along Magsaysay Avenue, Davao City, based on a confidential informant's tip regarding illegal drug activities. The seized items were prosecuted under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, specifically Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession) of Article II. Because the alleged crime took place in 2011, prior to the amendment of Section 21 by RA 10640 on July 15, 2014, the original provisions of Section 21 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations governed the procedural requirements for seizure, custody, and disposition of confiscated drugs.

On August 6, 2011, at about 11:30 a.m., a confidential informant notified PO3 Lendro Tutor of the Davao City police about the illegal drug activities of Zoraida Mariano a.k.a. Nora and her co-accused in front of NCCC Supermarket along Magsaysay Avenue, Davao City. A buy-bust team was formed with PO3 Tutor as the designated poseur buyer, and PO2 Virgilio Arubio and PO1 Junila Acierto as immediate backup. PO3 Tutor was given a P1,000 bill bearing serial number PS746307, marked with his initials "LBT," as buy-bust money. A Certificate of Coordination was prepared prior to dispatch.

At past noon, the team proceeded to the area. As they passed by the supermarket, the CI identified Nora and her co-accused standing beside an electrical post outside a Banco de Oro bank. PO3 Tutor and the CI alighted and walked toward them while the backup team positioned itself nearby. The CI approached Nora and spoke with her while PO3 Tutor stayed three meters away. When the CI signaled, PO3 Tutor was introduced to Nora as the buyer of shabu. Nora glanced at PO3 Tutor and made an eye gesture toward her co-accused, who then walked toward PO3 Tutor and asked how much he was going to buy. PO3 Tutor answered "bulig," meaning P1,000, and gave the marked money to the co-accused, who handed it to Nora. Nora took one elongated transparent plastic sachet from her shoulder bag and discreetly gave it to PO3 Tutor. After examining the contents, PO3 Tutor gave the pre-arranged signal by removing the towel from his shoulder. The backup team arrived, identified themselves as police officers, and arrested Nora and her co-accused.

A body search on Nora yielded one big plastic sachet containing shabu weighing 1.0923 grams, forty elongated sachets containing shabu weighing 3.5437 grams, and cash in the amount of P10,150. PO3 Tutor placed the seized items in separate evidence pouches and kept them in his custody. Due to crowding in the area, the team immediately brought Nora and her co-accused to the police station. Upon arrival, PO3 Tutor placed his markings on the seized items and indorsed them, together with the accused, to desk officer PO2 Adnan Ahadain, who placed his own markings and returned the items to PO3 Tutor as evidence custodian and investigating officer. PO3 Tutor labeled the evidence pouches and placed them in his locker for safekeeping.

Because the buy-bust operation occurred on a Saturday, the inventory of the seized items was conducted only on August 8, 2011, in the presence of Nora, Roger Abella from Brigada News, Barangay Chairman Joel Landero, and Noel Polito from the DOJ. A Certificate of Inventory was prepared and photographs were taken. PO3 Tutor then delivered the seized items, along with a Letter Request for Laboratory Examination, to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where PO1 Jerry Marron received them and placed his initials "JAM" on the drug specimens and their corresponding weights. Forensic Chemist PSI April Dela Rosa Fabian conducted a qualitative examination, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-128-11. The specimens were then turned over to SPO2 Antonio Alcozar, the evidence custodian of the crime laboratory.

Nora denied the charges. She testified that at around 11:30 a.m. of August 6, 2011, she went shopping alone at Uyanguren in Davao City before heading back to her residence in Cotabato City. After buying a few things, she went to NCCC Supermarket. While standing at the pedestrian lane near BDO, she and her co-accused were approached by men in civilian attire. A man, later identified as PO2 Arubio, held Nora and said, "Do not move, or else I will shoot you." She was arrested, and PO2 Arubio took her shopping bag containing items she bought for her children. At the police station, PO2 Arubio asked her to undress for a body search; when she refused and cried, a female officer was called in. After the frisk, the female officer said, "This one is clear." Nora saw her co-accused emerge from a room carrying a cellophane plastic. Two days later, both were subjected to a drug test, which yielded negative results.

• Identity of Sale Elements: Accused-appellant contended that the identities of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration were not sufficiently established.
• Possession Not Proved: Accused-appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove that she was in possession of illegal drugs.
• Chain of Custody: Accused-appellant maintained that the chain of custody was not clearly established.

• Elements Established: The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintained that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs through testimonial and documentary evidence, and that absent any ill motive to falsely testify, PO3 Tutor's testimony must be respected and the presumption of regularity upheld.
• Substantial Compliance with Chain of Custody: The OSG argued that while a perfect chain was not established, the arresting officers substantially complied with legal requirements to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized items, pointing to PO3 Tutor's testimony establishing each link: marking and inventory after arrest, personal delivery to the crime laboratory, and turnover to the evidence custodian.
• Failure to Specify Breach: The OSG posited that accused-appellant failed to specify which rule in the chain of custody was broken.

• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drugs.
• Section 21 Compliance: Whether the police officers complied with the procedural safeguards under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 regarding the immediate inventory and photography of seized items in the presence of required witnesses.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

• Chain of Custody: No. The prosecution failed to establish the first, third, and fourth links in the chain of custody, rendering the identity and integrity of the seized drugs unreliable.
• Section 21 Compliance: No. The inventory was conducted two days after seizure without justifiable grounds, and the required insulating witnesses were not present at the time of seizure and confiscation as mandated by Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: No. Accused-appellant was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding proof of a legitimate buy-bust operation.

• Chain of Custody: The Court applied the four-link chain of custody framework from People vs. Kamad: (1) seizure and marking by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover to the investigating officer; (3) turnover to the forensic chemist; and (4) turnover and submission by the forensic chemist to the court. The first link failed because PO3 Tutor did not immediately mark the seized items at the place of apprehension but only at the police station, and the forty elongated sachets were mingled together without individual markings, making it impossible to identify which item was subject of the sale and which were confiscated from Nora's possession — a distinction critical because the weight of the seized contraband determines the proper penalty for Illegal Possession. The third link failed because there was no evidence on record indicating how PO1 Marron handled and preserved the identity of the seized drugs while in his possession before handing them to PSI Fabian. The fourth link failed because there were no informative details as to how PSI Fabian handled and preserved the seized drugs before and after the qualitative examination, nor any evidence on how the items were kept until presented in court. Relying on People vs. Del Rosario, the Court held that the failure to offer details on how seized items were handled during movement from one person to another gives rise to the possibility of tampering, alteration, or substitution of the corpus delicti.

• Section 21 Compliance: Because the crime occurred in 2011, prior to the RA 10640 amendment, the original Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR applied, requiring that the apprehending team physically inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused or representative/counsel, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The inventory was conducted only on August 8, 2011, two days after the August 6 buy-bust. While strict adherence is not always required under justifiable grounds, the Court found none here. Applying People vs. Lim, justifiable grounds include remote arrest location, safety threats, involvement of elected officials in the offense, earnest but futile efforts to secure witnesses within the Article 125 period, or time constraints from urgent operations. Applying People vs. Sipin, the prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance and must not merely mention a justifiable ground but clearly state it in a sworn affidavit coupled with steps taken to preserve the integrity of the seized items. PO3 Tutor's testimony about exerting diligent efforts to secure witnesses was insufficient; sheer statements of unavailability are not justifiable reasons for non-compliance.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Although the elements of Illegal Sale (identity of buyer and seller, object, consideration, delivery, and payment) and Illegal Possession (possession of a prohibited drug, lack of authorization, and conscious possession) were satisfied through PO3 Tutor's testimony, the prosecution's failure to establish the chain of custody and comply with Section 21 cast serious doubt on the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the items seized from Nora were the very same items presented in court. Because the identity of the corpus delicti was not established beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal was required notwithstanding the legitimate conduct of the buy-bust operation.

• Chain of Custody — Four Links — The prosecution must establish four links in the chain of custody of seized drugs: (1) seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) turnover and submission of the seized and marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. In this case, the first, third, and fourth links were not established, rendering the identity and integrity of the seized drugs unreliable.

• Section 21, RA 9165 — Immediate Inventory and Photography; Insulating Witnesses — The apprehending team must, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or representative/counsel, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The presence of these insulating witnesses negates suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination. Non-compliance is excused only under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Here, the two-day delay in conducting the inventory was not justified, and the required witnesses were not present at the time of seizure.

• Prosecution's Burden to Justify Non-Compliance — The prosecution bears the positive duty to demonstrate observance of Section 21 procedures and to acknowledge and justify any deviations during trial. The apprehending officers must not simply mention a justifiable ground but clearly state it in their sworn affidavit, coupled with steps taken to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Sheer statements of unavailability of witnesses are not justifiable reasons for non-compliance.

• Justifiable Grounds for Non-Compliance with Section 21 — As enumerated in People vs. Lim, justifiable grounds include: (1) witness attendance impossible due to remote arrest location; (2) safety threatened by immediate retaliation; (3) elected officials involved in the punishable acts; (4) earnest efforts to secure witnesses within the Article 125 period proved futile through no fault of the arresting officers; or (5) time constraints and urgency of anti-drug operations prevented securing witnesses before offenders could escape. None of these grounds was established in this case.

• "The failure of the prosecution to offer details on how the seized items were handled during its movement from one person to another gives rise to the possibility of tampering, alteration, or substitution of the corpus delicti." — This passage articulates the rationale for requiring informative details at every link in the chain of custody and explains why gaps in handling create reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal.

• "sheer statements of unavailability of the witnesses given by the apprehending officers are not justifiable reasons for non-compliance with the requirement." — This defines the minimum threshold for what constitutes a justifiable ground for non-compliance with Section 21's witness-presence requirement, rejecting conclusory assertions of witness unavailability.

• "Though successful in proving the conduct of a legitimate buy-bust operation, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the items seized from Nora were the very same items presented in court." — This captures the critical distinction between proving the conduct of the operation and proving the identity of the corpus delicti, which is the decisive ground for acquittal in this case.

• People vs. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010) — Controlling authority for the four-link chain of custody framework. The Court applied its enumeration of the four links and found that the first, third, and fourth links were not established.

• People vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 2, 2020 — Followed for the proposition that the prosecution must provide informative details on how seized items were handled at each transfer point, and that the absence of such details gives rise to the possibility of tampering, alteration, or substitution.

• People vs. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018 — Followed for the enumeration of justifiable grounds for non-compliance with Section 21's witness-presence requirement. None of the enumerated grounds was found to apply.

• People vs. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67 (2018) — Followed for the doctrine that the prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance and must clearly state the justifiable ground in a sworn affidavit coupled with steps taken to preserve the integrity of seized items.

• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), as originally enacted (pre-RA 10640 amendment) — Requires the apprehending team to immediately after seizure and confiscation physically inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or representative/counsel, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. Applied to determine that the two-day delay in inventory and the absence of required witnesses at the time of seizure constituted non-compliance without justifiable grounds.

• Section 21(a), Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 — Provides that non-compliance with the inventory and photography requirements shall not render seizures void and invalid under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Applied to assess whether the prosecution established justifiable grounds for the delayed inventory; the Court found none.

Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson), Zalameda, J., Rosario, J., and Marquez, J.