People vs. Sali

In prosecutions for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, is required to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Failure by the prosecution to adequately explain and justify non-compliance with these mandatory safeguards, especially when the seized quantity is minuscule, creates reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti and warrants acquittal.

Mustafa Sali y Alawaddin was charged with violations of Sections 5 (illegal sale) and 11 (illegal possession) of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on June 21, 2010, he sold one sachet of shabu (0.0241 gram) to a poseur-buyer during a buy-bust operation in Zamboanga City and was found in possession of another sachet (0.0155 gram) upon arrest. The defense claimed frame-up, asserting that Sali was at his parents' house during a family celebration when he was forcibly taken by armed men, subjected to a fruitless search, and later pressured to produce money for his release.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: A confidential informant reported Sali's drug activities to PDEA. A team was formed with IO1 Lanza as poseur-buyer. Using marked P200.00, Lanza, accompanied by the informant, purchased one sachet of suspected shabu from Sali at his sari-sari store. After the sale, Lanza gave a pre-arranged signal, and back-up officers arrested Sali.
• Post-Arrest Seizure and Marking: Upon frisking Sali, IO1 Natividad found another sachet of suspected shabu, a coin purse, and the marked money. Both sachets were marked by the arresting officers (MCL, JPS, 06/21/10 for the sold item; BBN, JPS, 06/21/10 for the item seized upon search).
• Inventory and Investigation: The physical inventory and photography were conducted at the PDEA Regional Office, not at the place of seizure. The Certificate of Inventory was signed by media and DOJ representatives and an elected public official, but not by the accused or his representative. IO1 Sacro, the investigator, prepared the request for laboratory examination. Both sachets tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.
• Defense's Version: Sali testified he was at his parents' house for his son's first birthday celebration when armed men in civilian attire forcibly took him. He was handcuffed, subjected to a body search where nothing was found, and brought to the police station. He alleged he was pressured to produce P50,000.00 for his release.

• Chain of Custody and Procedural Lapses: Petitioner (People, through the accused-appellant) maintained that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. He argued that the arresting officers did not comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as the inventory and photography were not conducted immediately at the place of seizure, and he was not afforded his right to be present during the inventory or to have a representative.
• Lack of Justifiable Ground for Non-Compliance: Petitioner contended that the prosecution did not provide any justifiable reason for deviating from the mandatory procedure. The general allegation of "security reasons" was insufficient and not supported by evidence.
• Reasonable Doubt: Given the minuscule amount of drugs seized (0.0241g and 0.0155g) and the procedural flaws, petitioner argued that the integrity of the corpus delicti was compromised, creating reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

• Substantial Compliance and Preserved Integrity: Respondent (People, through the OSG) countered that the chain of custody was unbroken. It argued that the marking was done at the crime scene, and the inventory and photography at the PDEA office constituted substantial compliance. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
• Sufficiency of Markings: Respondent argued that the markings on the sachets (initials and date) were sufficient to distinguish the evidence, and a signature was not required.
• Saving Clause: Respondent invoked the proviso in the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, asserting that non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not invalidate the seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved.

• Compliance with Section 21: Whether the arresting officers' failure to conduct the physical inventory and photography immediately at the place of seizure, and to secure the presence of the accused or his representative, constituted a fatal breach of the chain of custody rule.
• Justifiable Ground for Deviation: Whether the prosecution provided sufficient justification for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the procedural lapses, coupled with the minuscule quantity of drugs, created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, warranting an acquittal.

• Compliance with Section 21: The failure to comply was fatal. The physical inventory and photography were conducted at the PDEA office, not at the place of seizure. The prosecution's claim of "security reasons" was a bare allegation, unsupported by specific details of any threat. Furthermore, the Certificate of Inventory lacked the signature of the accused or his representative, and no earnest efforts were shown to secure their presence.
• Justifiable Ground for Deviation: No justifiable ground was proven. The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance. The Joint-Affidavit of Arrest did not state any ground for the deviation, and the testimonies failed to mention any justifiable cause. The saving clause cannot be invoked without a factual foundation.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The procedural lapses created reasonable doubt. The minuscule quantity of drugs (0.0241g and 0.0155g) heightens the risk of planting, tampering, or alteration. The unjustified non-compliance with Section 21 cast serious doubt on whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from the accused. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Chain of Custody Rule — This rule requires the prosecution to account for each link in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, from seizure, marking, turnover, to presentation in court. Its purpose is to ensure the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. The Court applied this by scrutinizing the sequence of custody from the arresting officers to the investigator and to the forensic chemist, finding critical gaps due to procedural non-compliance.
• Mandatory Compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 — The procedure for seizure and custody of dangerous drugs is mandatory. Non-compliance may be excused only if: (1) there are justifiable grounds for the deviation, and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must affirmatively prove both conditions. Here, neither was established.
• Burden of Proving Justifiable Grounds — The prosecution has the positive duty to acknowledge, explain, and justify any deviation from the Section 21 procedure. It must state the justifiable ground in the sworn affidavit and detail the steps taken to preserve integrity. The Court found this burden was not met.

• "The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of law."
• "The non-observance of the procedure mandated by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, casts serious doubt if the illegal drugs presented in court are the same illegal drugs seized from Sali. It is worthy to note the quantities of the illegal drugs seized which are only 0.0241 gram and 0.0155 gram. They are extremely small amounts which are highly susceptible to planting and tampering. This is the very reason why strict adherence to Section 21 is a must."

• People v. Gatlabayan, 669 Phil. 240 (2011) — Cited for the principle that the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with certitude and that the substance presented in court must be exactly the same one recovered from the suspect.
• People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018 — Cited as controlling precedent on the prosecution's burden to prove justifiable grounds for non-compliance with Section 21 and the requirement to state such grounds in the sworn affidavit.

• Section 21(1), Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — Mandates the procedure for physical inventory and photography of seized drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused, representatives from media and DOJ, and an elected public official.
• Section 21(a), Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 — Contains the saving clause allowing non-compliance under justifiable grounds if integrity and evidentiary value are preserved.
• Republic Act No. 10640 (2014) — Amended R.A. No. 9165, incorporating the saving clause into the law itself and requiring a representative from the National Prosecution Service or media.

• Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa
• Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (no longer listed in the decision text; replaced by others)
• Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (no longer listed in the decision text; replaced by others)
• Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (no longer listed in the decision text; replaced by others) Note: The decision lists concurring justices as: Caguioa, Reyes, J., Jr., Lazaro-Javier, and Lopez, JJ.