People vs. Nabua

In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, the failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21—specifically the presence of media and DOJ representatives during inventory and photography without justifiable explanation, coupled with the absence of evidence regarding the handling of the drugs by the forensic chemist—compromises the integrity of the corpus delicti and mandates acquittal, notwithstanding the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.

On October 20, 2013, police operatives in Rosario, La Union conducted a buy-bust operation against Joey Nabua y Campos following a tip from a confidential informant regarding illegal drug activities in Barangay Rabon. The operation resulted in the seizure of two heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu, along with buy-bust money. The accused, a traffic enforcer by occupation, claimed he was merely accompanying companions to purchase pigeons when he was framed by the police. The case proceeded to trial after his co-accused were dismissed, leading to his conviction by the Regional Trial Court and subsequent affirmation by the Court of Appeals.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: On October 20, 2013, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Police Chief Inspector Orly Z. Pagaduan of Rosario Police Station, La Union, received information from a confidential informant that a certain "alias Boyet" was selling illegal drugs in Barangay Rabon. Pagaduan organized a buy-bust operation, assigning SPO1 Roberto V. Vargas as poseur buyer and SPO1 Reynaldo B. Ofiaza and PO1 Tony S. Fernandez, Jr. as immediate back-up. The team agreed that scratching the neck would signal consummation of the sale.
• The Alleged Transaction: The informant contacted appellant to arrange a meeting at Ortega's store in Barangay Rabon. Appellant arrived in a white Mitsubishi L-300 cab, alighted 20 meters from the store, and approached SPO1 Vargas. After the informant introduced them, appellant allegedly handed one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to SPO1 Vargas in exchange for P500.00 buy-bust money. SPO1 Vargas scratched his neck to signal the back-up team.
• Arrest and Seizure: PO1 Fernandez immediately arrested appellant and informed him of his constitutional rights. SPO1 Vargas and SPO1 Ofiaza approached the vehicle where they saw co-accused Saturnino and Baltazar, but the search yielded nothing. SPO1 Vargas searched appellant and recovered the buy-bust money and another sachet of suspected shabu.
• Marking and Inventory: At the situs criminis, SPO1 Vargas marked the seized items as "RVV-1" (sachet sold) and "RVV-2" (sachet recovered from appellant). An inventory was prepared in the presence of Barangay Captain Eduardo Peralta and Barangay Tanods Edgar Cabunias and Victor Lopez. No representatives from the media or the Department of Justice were present, and the police offered no justifiable explanation for their absence.
• Laboratory Examination: SPO1 Vargas brought the seized items to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office 1. Forensic Chemist PSI Ma. Theresa Amor C. Manuel received the specimens and conducted qualitative examination. Per Report No. D-107-2013, the specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. However, no evidence was presented regarding how the forensic chemist handled, stored, or preserved the drugs while in her custody.
• Defense Version: Appellant testified that he was working as a traffic enforcer in San Fabian, Pangasinan from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on October 20, 2013. He claimed that Saturnino and Baltazar invited him to buy pigeons, and upon alighting from the vehicle to look for the seller, SPO1 Vargas (in civilian clothes) suddenly poked a gun at him and arrested him despite his denial of being "Boyet." He maintained he was framed.
• Lower Court Findings: The trial court found that a valid buy-bust operation occurred and that the integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved from seizure to presentation in court. It held that the presence of media and DOJ representatives during inventory was not indispensable.

• Chain of Custody Deficiencies: Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, citing: (a) the marking was not done immediately upon seizure; (b) the seized items were not placed in a separate container nor sealed before transfer to the crime laboratory; and (c) the absence of testimony regarding how the forensic chemist actually handled the specimen before, during, and after examination, creating reasonable doubt whether the substance tested was the same as that presented in court.
• Inapplicability of Presumption of Regularity: Appellant maintained that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions could not substitute for compliance with mandatory procedural requirements or cure the broken links in the chain of custody.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The People countered that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were sufficiently established through the testimony of the buy-bust team members who witnessed the transaction.
• Substantial Compliance: Respondent argued that the marking, inventory, and photography conducted in the presence of appellant and three barangay officials substantially complied with the chain of custody rule, and that the absence of media and DOJ representatives did not invalidate the seizure.
• Presumption of Regularity: The prosecution maintained that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions prevailed over appellant's bare denial and unsubstantiated allegations of frame-up.

• Chain of Custody Compliance: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction despite the prosecution's failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically the absence of media and DOJ representatives during inventory and photography and the lack of evidence regarding the forensic chemist's handling of the seized drugs.
• Saving Clause Applicability: Whether the saving clause under Section 21(a) of the IRR of RA 9165 could be applied to excuse the procedural lapses when no justifiable explanation was offered for the non-compliance.

• Chain of Custody Compliance: The conviction was reversed on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the corpus delicti. The inventory and photography of seized items were conducted only in the presence of barangay officials, without the required representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, and the arresting officers failed to provide any justifiable explanation for these absences. Furthermore, no evidence was presented regarding how the forensic chemist handled, stored, or preserved the seized drugs while in her custody, creating a fatal gap in the chain that compromised the identity and integrity of the evidence.
• Saving Clause Applicability: The saving clause could not be invoked because the twin conditions for its application were not satisfied: (a) the prosecution failed to explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were not properly preserved. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot substitute for compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards or mend broken links in the chain of custody where records reveal serious lapses.

• Chain of Custody Rule — Defined as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. The record must include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody, the date and time of transfer, and the final disposition. The rule requires the prosecution to account for four links: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. This ensures that the substance illegally possessed is the same substance presented in court, given the unique characteristics of illegal drugs that render them indistinct and susceptible to tampering, alteration, or substitution.
• Section 21 Requirements under RA 9165 — The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
• Saving Clause — Non-compliance with the witness requirements under Section 21(a) of the IRR of RA 9165 under justifiable grounds does not render void and invalid such seizures, provided: (a) the prosecution explains the reasons behind the procedural lapses; and (b) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. A justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as fact, not merely asserted.
• Presumption of Regularity — The presumption under Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court that official duty has been regularly performed cannot prevail over clear evidence of serious procedural lapses or breaches in the chain of custody, as allowing the presumption to prevail notwithstanding clear errors would negate the safeguards precisely placed by law to ensure that no abuse is committed.

• "The breaches in chain of custody rule here were fatal flaws effectively destroying the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti."
• "There can be no presumption of regularity in this case when records were replete with details of the policemen's serious lapses. For to allow the presumption to prevail notwithstanding clear errors on the part of the police is to negate the safeguards precisely placed by law to ensure that no abuse is committed."
• "Here, the presumption was amply overturned by compelling evidence of the serious breaches of the chain of custody rule."

• People v. Abelarde, G.R. No. 215713, January 22, 2018 — Controlling precedent where the accused was acquitted because there was no evidence that the inventory and photograph of seized dangerous drugs were done in the presence of a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official.
• People v. Macud, G.R. No. 219175, December 14, 2017 — Cited for the rule that failure to secure the presence of required witnesses during inventory and photography warrants acquittal.
• People v. Año, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018 — Referenced regarding the principle that unjustified gaps in the chain of custody militate against a finding of guilt.
• People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017 (2017) — Applied for the requirement that the prosecution must present evidence on how the illegal drugs were stored, preserved, labeled, or who had custody thereof before presentation in court; acquittal ordered where records were bereft of such evidence.
• People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018 — Controlling precedent establishing that despite non-observance of witness requirements, the absence of plausible explanation for procedural lapses militates against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — Defines and penalizes the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 — Prescribes the procedure for custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, requiring immediate physical inventory and photography in the presence of the accused, media, DOJ, and elected public officials.
• Section 21(a), Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 — Elaborates the inventory requirements and provides the saving clause for non-compliance under justifiable grounds as long as integrity and evidentiary value are preserved.
• Section 1(b), Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 — Defines chain of custody as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs through each stage from seizure to final disposition.
• Section 3(m), Rule 131, Rules of Court — Establishes the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.

Caguioa, J.; Reyes, Jr., J.; Zalameda, J.