Primary Holding

The Supreme Court acquitted Basher Tomawis, holding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, thus failing to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal drug sale.

Background

This is a criminal case involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, specifically methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case originated from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). The central issue revolves around the procedural compliance of law enforcement in handling seized drug evidence and protecting the accused’s rights within the context of the anti-drug campaign.

Facts

• 1. PDEA agents conducted a buy-bust operation against alias "Salim" (later identified as Basher Tomawis) based on information from a confidential informant.
• 2. IO1 Alejandro acted as the poseur buyer and transacted with Tomawis in a food court in Starmall Alabang.
• 3. After the exchange of money for suspected shabu, Alejandro gave a pre-arranged signal and back-up officers arrested Tomawis.
• 4. Due to a commotion, marking of evidence was not done at the place of arrest.
• 5. Inventory and photographing of the seized items were conducted at Barangay Pinyahan Hall in Quezon City, not at the place of arrest or nearest police station/PDEA office.
• 6. Inventory was witnessed by two Barangay Councilors but not by representatives from DOJ or media.
• 7. There were inconsistencies in testimonies regarding who handled the drugs at different stages and when the marking was done.
• 8. The defense argued that Tomawis was falsely accused and was selling cellular phones, not drugs.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The prosecution failed to prove the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.
• 2. There were irregularities in the buy-bust operation, specifically: failure to present the testimony of IO1 Alfonso (inventory officer), failure to immediately mark the shabu at the time of seizure, and improper venue for inventory and marking.
• 3. The chain of custody was not properly established, creating doubt about the corpus delicti.
• 4. The buy-bust team did not comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules regarding inventory and presence of required witnesses.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The prosecution was able to prove all elements of illegal drug sale.
• 2. IO1 Alejandro’s testimony was clear and corroborated by IO1 Lacap and documentary evidence.
• 3. The chain of custody was sufficiently established.
• 4. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties should prevail as there was no ill-motive or bad faith from the buy-bust team.
• 5. The inventory was justifiably done in a different place due to commotion.
• 6. The defense was a mere denial and cannot overcome the positive assertions of arresting officers.

Issues

• 1. Whether or not Tomawis’ guilt for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• 2. Whether the buy-bust team complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 regarding chain of custody and inventory of seized drugs.
• 3. Whether the procedural lapses in handling the seized evidence compromised the integrity of the corpus delicti.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tomawis, finding the appeal meritorious.
• 2. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, particularly the three-witness rule (presence of accused/representative, media, and DOJ during inventory).
• 3. The inventory was improperly conducted at the barangay hall instead of the place of seizure or nearest permissible locations, without justifiable reason.
• 4. The three-witness rule was not complied with as DOJ and media representatives were absent; only barangay officials were present, and they were called after the seizure.
• 5. There were inconsistencies and gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs, raising reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.
• 6. The presumption of regularity cannot cure the procedural lapses, especially when the lapses themselves are affirmative proofs of irregularity.
• 7. Due to the failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody and non-compliance with mandatory procedures, reasonable doubt exists, warranting acquittal.

Doctrines

• 1. Presumption of Innocence: The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, a constitutionally protected right.
• 2. Chain of Custody: The duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from seizure to presentation in court, essential to preserve integrity and identity of evidence. Failure to establish it raises reasonable doubt.
• 3. Corpus Delicti in Drug Cases: The drug itself is the body of the crime, requiring its identity and integrity to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• 4. Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties: This presumption is disputable and subordinate to the presumption of innocence. In drug cases, it arises only when procedural requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 are followed or deviations are justified and integrity of evidence is preserved.
• 5. Three-Witness Rule (Section 21 of RA 9165): Mandatory requirement for inventory and photographing of seized drugs to be done in the presence of the accused/representative, media, and DOJ representative immediately after seizure, to safeguard against planting of evidence.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "In our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt."
• 2. "It is better that 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer." (Blackstone's ratio)
• 3. "The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest."
• 4. "Any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated contraband. Absent any of the said conditions, the noncompliance is an irregularity, a red flag, that casts reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti."

Precedents Cited

• 1. People v. Pagaura and People v. Salangga: Reinforce the principle of reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
• 2. People v. Mendoza: Emphasizes the importance of the insulating presence of witnesses during seizure and marking to prevent planting or contamination of evidence. Highlighted the dangers of switching, planting, or contamination without proper procedure.
• 3. People v. Cayas and Gamboa v. People: Stressed that Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law and not a mere technicality, underlining the importance of strict compliance.
• 4. People v. Umipang: Cited in Gamboa to support the substantive nature of Section 21.
• 5. Mallillin v. People: Explains the unique characteristic of narcotic substances and the necessity of a stringent chain of custody to ensure integrity and identity of drug evidence.
• 6. People v. Alviz: States integrity and evidentiary value are preserved if chain of custody is duly established.
• 7. People v. Belocura: Reiterates the presumption of innocence.
• 8. People v. Enriquez: Highlights that procedural lapses are affirmative proofs of irregularity and undermine the presumption of regularity.
• 9. People v. Go and People v. Aminnudin: Used to emphasize the protection of individual liberties even for the guilty, within the context of the anti-drug campaign.
• 10. People v. Jugo: Cited as recent jurisprudence reiterating the reminder on subject matter.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002): Defines and penalizes the sale, trading, etc., of dangerous drugs.
• 2. Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (original version): Outlines the procedure for custody and disposition of seized drugs, requiring inventory and photography immediately after seizure in the presence of specific witnesses.
• 3. Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165: Details the place of inventory and the saving clause for non-compliance under justifiable grounds.
• 4. Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure: Legal basis for appeal to the Supreme Court.
• 5. Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court: Provides for disputable presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
• 6. Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution: Guarantees the presumption of innocence in all criminal prosecutions.
• 7. Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, Section 1(b): Defines "Chain of Custody".