People vs. Nepomuceno

The failure of the arresting officers to conduct the physical inventory and photograph the seized dangerous drugs in the presence of the accused and the mandatory witnesses under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, without any justifiable ground proven as a fact, is fatal to the prosecution’s case and entitles the accused to acquittal, because the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti are thereby rendered doubtful.

On 21 February 2008, a buy-bust operation was mounted against Hilario Nepomuceno y Visaya alias “Bok” along Felix Huertas Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, after a confidential informant reported his illegal drug activities. During the operation, a poseur-buyer purchased one sachet of shabu using marked money, and another sachet was recovered from the accused upon arrest. The police brought the accused to the station before marking the seized items. Two Informations were filed—for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The trial court convicted the accused, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. On further appeal, the sole issue was whether the prosecution’s non-compliance with the post-seizure requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 warranted acquittal.

The Buy-Bust Operation: - On 20 February 2008, a confidential informant reported to Police Inspector John Guiagi that an alias “Bok” was selling drugs on Felix Huertas Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila. Surveillance confirmed the information. - A pre-operation report and coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency were prepared. On 21 February 2008, a buy-bust team was briefed; PO2 Boy Nino Baladjay was designated poseur-buyer and provided with three marked ₱100 bills. - At around 3:30 p.m., the team proceeded to the target area. The informant introduced Baladjay to the accused as a buyer. The accused asked “magkano?”; Baladjay replied “₱300.” The accused pulled out two small plastic sachets of white crystalline substance and told Baladjay to pick one. Baladjay took one sachet and handed over the marked money. - Upon receiving the money, Baladjay executed the pre-arranged signal, introduced himself as a police officer, and arrested the accused. The other sachet and the buy-bust money were recovered. - A commotion instigated by a neighbor disrupted the scene, prompting the team to bring the accused to the police station before marking the seized items.

Prosecution’s Evidence on Custody: - The sachets were marked only at the police station. No photograph was taken of the seized items. No physical inventory was conducted in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a Department of Justice representative, and an elected public official. - A spot report was prepared by SPO2 Gonzales. The arresting officer testified that no camera was available. - Laboratory examination confirmed the contents as methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) with net weights of 0.020 gram and 0.023 gram.

Accused-Appellant’s Version: - The accused claimed he was coming from work as a welder when two men on a motorcycle stopped him, asked his identity, and, joined by five other men, invited him to the police station. He was detained without explanation and later charged, although no illegal drugs were recovered from him.

Lower Courts’ Findings: - The RTC and CA found the prosecution’s evidence sufficient and credible. They applied the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and held that the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved despite non-compliance with Section 21.

• Non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165: Accused-appellant maintained that the apprehending officers failed to mark the seized drugs immediately at the place of arrest, did not conduct a physical inventory, and did not photograph the items in the presence of the required witnesses, rendering the identity of the corpus delicti unreliable.

• Absence of Justifiable Ground: He argued that the prosecution offered no valid or credible explanation for the procedural lapses, and the mere claim that no camera was available was insufficient to excuse non-compliance.

• Break in Chain of Custody: The accused-appellant asserted that the lapses created substantial gaps in the chain of custody, thereby casting reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.

• Preservation of Integrity Despite Lapses: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the non-compliance with Section 21 was not fatal because the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved, and the trial court correctly found an unbroken chain of custody. It argued that mere procedural deviations, without proof of actual tampering, did not warrant acquittal.

• Non-compliance with Section 21: Whether the failure of the arresting officers to comply with the mandatory inventory and photograph requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, without any justifiable ground proven as a fact, compromised the integrity of the seized dangerous drugs and entitled the accused-appellant to acquittal.

• Non-compliance with Section 21: The conviction was reversed and the accused-appellant acquitted. The corpus delicti in illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs is the seized substance itself; therefore, the State must strictly prove its identity from confiscation to presentation in court through an unbroken chain of custody. Section 21 mandates that immediately after seizure, the apprehending team conduct a physical inventory and photograph the items in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a Department of Justice representative, and an elected public official, who must sign the inventory. The records showed that no photograph was taken and no inventory was prepared with the required witnesses. The spot report drafted by the police did not substitute for the statutory inventory because it was an internal document prepared without the participation of insulating witnesses. The explanation that no camera was available was deemed improbable given the prevalence of mobile phones with cameras and the planned nature of a buy-bust operation, and therefore did not constitute a justifiable ground. Because the prosecution failed to prove the justifiable ground as a fact and did not establish that the integrity of the seized items was preserved, the chain of custody was broken, generating reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. The lapses also negated the application of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. Consequently, the guilt of the accused was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Corpus Delicti in Dangerous Drugs Cases — The dangerous drug is itself the corpus delicti. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the substance presented in court is the very same substance seized from the accused. Failure to account for the drug’s identity from seizure to presentation results in failure to establish the corpus delicti.

• Strict Compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 — Section 21 requires the apprehending team to (a) immediately after seizure conduct a physical inventory and (b) photograph the seized items (c) in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official, (d) who must sign the inventory and be given a copy. Non-compliance is excused only if (i) a justifiable ground for the lapses is proven as a fact, and (ii) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The justifiable ground cannot be presumed; it must be affirmatively shown.

• Inventory Distinguished from Spot Report — An inventory under Section 21 is a formal listing of seized items made in the presence of insulating witnesses who sign it, whereas a spot report is an internal police narrative of the incident addressed to higher officers. The preparation of a spot report does not cure the absence of the mandatory inventory.

• Presumption of Regularity Inapplicable in Case of Lapses — When the apprehending officers commit irregularities in handling seized evidence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot be invoked. The lapses themselves are irregularities that taint the evidence.

• “The deliberate taking of the identifying steps ensured by the requirements was precisely aimed at obviating switching, ‘planting’ or contamination of the evidence.”

• “Non-compliance with the strict directive of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case; police procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence may still have some lapses … These lapses, however, must be recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved.”

• “[T]he justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact. The court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.”

• “The State does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the corpus delicti if the subject drugs are missing, or if substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody of the seized drugs as to raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence presented in the trial court.”

• People v. Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029, 9 August 2010 — Followed as controlling precedent; the Court reiterated that failure to conduct an inventory and photograph without justifiable grounds compromises the evidence’s integrity and results in acquittal.

• People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, 14 August 2009 — Cited for the principle that the requirements of Section 21 are designed to prevent switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

• Mallillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, 30 April 2008 — Referred to for the general rule on the necessity of establishing an unbroken chain of custody.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Illegal sale of dangerous drugs; the prosecution must prove the sale and delivery of the dangerous drug, and that the substance presented is the corpus delicti.

• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Illegal possession of dangerous drugs; requires proof of possession and identity of the seized substance.

• Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, and its Implementing Rules — Mandates the procedure for custody and disposition of seized drugs: immediate physical inventory and photograph in the presence of the accused (or representative/counsel), a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official; non-compliance is excused only upon proof of justifiable grounds and preservation of the evidence’s integrity. Applied to hold that the police’s omission of the inventory and photograph, without a valid excuse, rendered the seized items’ identity unreliable.

Leonardo-De Castro, C.J. (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Tijam, and J. Reyes, Jr., JJ., concurred.