Tolentino vs. People

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the failure of the apprehending officers to conduct the inventory and photograph of the seized items in the presence of the accused (or his representative) and the three required witnesses—an elected public official, a representative of the Department of Justice, and a representative of the media—without any justifiable ground, creates a substantial gap in the chain of custody and raises a reasonable doubt on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, thus mandating acquittal.

On February 13, 2009, members of Task Force Bantay Droga, together with a poseur-buyer, conducted a buy-bust operation in Barangay Ungot, Tarlac City, targeting an individual known as “Kabasi.” The poseur-buyer previously arranged to purchase ₱300.00 worth of marijuana but ultimately bought only ₱100.00 worth due to an alleged stock shortage. After the exchange, the pre-arranged signal was given, and the petitioner was arrested. Three marked ₱100.00 bills and three heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing suspected marijuana were confiscated. The petitioner was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.

• Nature of the Charge: Petitioner Jessie Tolentino y Samia was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, allegedly committed on February 13, 2009 at around 1:30 p.m. in Tarlac City by selling three heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing 2.700 grams to a poseur-buyer for ₱300.00.
• The Buy-Bust Operation: On February 13, 2009, SPO2 Jorge G. Andasan, Jr. and SPO1 Eduardo T. Navarro, together with poseur-buyer Romeo Dela Pena, conducted an anti-drug operation in Barangay Ungot. Three marked ₱100.00 bills were prepared. Dela Pena had earlier informed the petitioner that he wanted to buy ₱300.00 worth of marijuana. Upon arrival, Dela Pena was able to purchase only ₱100.00 worth due to a claimed shortage of stock. After the exchange, Dela Pena grabbed the petitioner—the pre-arranged signal—and an arrest was effected.
• Inventory, Marking, and Photography: The arresting team brought the petitioner to the house of the barangay captain of Ungot. There, SPO1 Navarro conducted a physical inventory and took photographs. The three plastic sachets were marked as “ETN,” “ETN-1,” and “ETN-2.” SPO1 Navarro testified that the inventory was made in the presence of the barangay captain, who signed the inventory, but neither a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ) nor any member of the media was present. SPO1 Navarro later personally delivered the seized items to the crime laboratory, maintaining exclusive custody from inventory to turnover.
• Prosecution’s Account of the Transaction: SPO2 Andasan corroborated that he was about 15 meters away when the transaction occurred. Dela Pena testified that he knew the petitioner from previous dealings and that he personally transacted the sale. SPO1 Navarro admitted he was about 50 meters away and did not directly witness the drug deal but saw the pre-arranged signal and the subsequent arrest.
• Defense’s Account: Petitioner denied selling drugs. He claimed that at the time of the incident, he was working elsewhere making door jambs and was called home upon learning of visitors. At his house, a certain Bong Vargas asked for marijuana, but petitioner disclaimed knowledge. Vargas fled, and Dela Pena appeared, pointed a gun at petitioner and his son, fired twice, and handcuffed petitioner. Petitioner alleged that he saw SPO2 Andasan and SPO1 Navarro in possession of marijuana. He was taken to the barangay captain’s house, made to sign documents, later hit on the head in a nipa house, and forced to sign more papers before being detained. Petitioner’s son, Jaycee Tolentino, and a neighbor, Jimmy Estrada, testified to a frame-up, witnessing the planting of evidence and the irregular arrest. Petitioner filed an administrative case against the officers.

• Non-Compliance with Section 21: Petitioner maintained that his conviction must be set aside because the prosecution failed to establish every link in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs and did not comply with the mandatory procedure outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, particularly the requirement that the inventory and photograph be conducted in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, a representative of the DOJ, and a media representative.

• Sufficiency of the Chain of Custody: Respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that the identity and integrity of the seized marijuana were properly preserved and that the absence of the DOJ and media representatives during the inventory did not vitiate the seizure because the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 allow flexibility as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are maintained.

• Chain of Custody and Required Witnesses: Whether the prosecution proved the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs through faithful compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, specifically the requirement that the inventory be witnessed by an elected public official, a DOJ representative, and a media representative.
• Justifiable Ground for Non-Compliance: Whether the apprehending officers offered any justifiable ground to excuse their failure to secure the presence of the DOJ and media representatives during the inventory of the seized items.

• Chain of Custody and Required Witnesses: The prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti with the required moral certainty. Under the old provisions of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (applicable because the offense was committed before the 2014 amendment by Republic Act No. 10640), the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be conducted immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official. In this case, only the barangay captain of Ungot was present. The absence of the DOJ and media representatives constituted a substantial gap in the chain of custody and raised serious doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the items, especially given the small volume of marijuana that is highly susceptible to tampering or planting.
• Justifiable Ground for Non-Compliance: No justifiable ground was alleged, much less proven, for the non-compliance. The prosecution neither showed that the police officers made earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the missing witnesses nor offered any explanation falling within the instances recognized as valid justification—such as the unavailability of media or DOJ representatives at that time, the remoteness of the arrest location, threats to safety, or time constraints. The buy-bust occurred at 1:30 p.m., giving the officers ample opportunity to coordinate with the required witnesses. Without a valid justification, the saving clause under Section 21 cannot be invoked, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties does not cure the deliberate disregard of procedural safeguards. The failure to comply with the mandatory requirements was fatal to the prosecution’s case and warranted an acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

• Chain of Custody and the Mandatory Witnesses Rule (Old Section 21, R.A. No. 9165) — The physical inventory and photograph of seized dangerous drugs must be conducted immediately after seizure in the presence of (a) the accused or his representative, (b) a media representative, (c) a DOJ representative, and (d) any elected public official. These witnesses serve as insulating safeguards against evidence-planting, switching, or contamination, and ensure the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. Non-compliance, absent a valid justification, breaks the chain of custody and entitles the accused to an acquittal.
• Justifiable Grounds for Non-Compliance — The apprehending officers must prove, as a fact, a justifiable ground for the absence of the required witnesses. The enumeration drawn from People v. Reyes and People v. Sipin includes: the unavailability of media or DOJ representatives at the time or in the area; the remoteness of the place of arrest; threats to safety; the involvement of the elected official in the criminal activity; unsuccessful earnest efforts to secure the witnesses within the period mandated under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code; and time constraints or urgency of the operation. Mere invocation of the saving clause that the integrity of the seized items was preserved does not suffice.
• Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof in Drug Cases — The prosecution bears the burden of proving compliance with Section 21 beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over a clear, deliberate, or gross disregard of the procedural safeguards. When the State fails to establish the corpus delicti with certainty, the accused must be acquitted.
• Mandatory Policy under People v. Lim — The apprehending officers must state, in their sworn statements or affidavits, their compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. In case of non-observance, they must expressly declare the justification and the steps taken to preserve the integrity of the seized items. The investigating fiscal must not file the case if no justification appears, and the court may dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause.

• “The failure of the police officers to provide a reasonable excuse or justification for the absence of the other witnesses clearly magnified the lack of concrete effort on their part to comply with the requirements of Section 21. The absence of these witnesses constitutes a substantial gap in the chain of custody and raises doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the items that were allegedly seized from the petitioner. It militates against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
• “Even the presumption as to regularity in the performance by police officers of their official duties cannot prevail when there has been a clear and deliberate disregard of procedural safeguards by the police officers themselves.” (quoting People v. Umipang)
• “Absent faithful compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 which is primarily intended to, first, preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items in drugs cases, and second, to safeguard accused persons from unfounded and unjust convictions, an acquittal becomes the proper recourse.”

• People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018 — Followed; explained that non-compliance with Section 21 implies a failure to establish the identity of the corpus delicti and tarnishes the credibility of the prosecution’s claim.
• People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749 (2014) — Followed; stressed that the absence of insulating witnesses reopens the door to evidence-planting, switching, or contamination, thereby negating the integrity of the seizure.
• People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 219953, April 23, 2018 — Followed; enumerated the specific instances when the absence of required witnesses may be justified.
• People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018 — Followed; provided additional grounds for relaxing the mandatory witness rule, all of which must be proven by the prosecution.
• People v. Relato, 679 Phil. 268 (2012) — Followed; held that the State carries the burden of proving the corpus delicti; any substantial gap in the chain of custody raises grave doubts and renders the case incomplete.
• People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018 — Followed; mandated that arresting officers must state compliance in their sworn affidavits and, if non-compliance exists, must expressly declare the justification; the fiscal shall not file the case without it.
• People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024 (2012) — Followed; ruled that a deliberate disregard of procedural safeguards destroys the presumption of regularity and creates reasonable doubt.
• People v. Hilario, G.R. No. 210610, January 11, 2018 — Followed; reiterated that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and cannot rely on the weakness of the defense.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — Defines and penalizes the illegal sale of dangerous drugs with life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000,000.00. The elements of the crime were allegedly established by the prosecution, but the conviction was overturned for failure to prove the corpus delicti.
• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (old version, prior to amendment by R.A. No. 10640) — Prescribed the procedure for the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs, requiring an immediate physical inventory and photograph in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The provision includes a saving clause that non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not void the seizure provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved. The Court applied this version and found substantial non-compliance without justification.
• Section 1(A.1.10), Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 — Directs that any justification for non-compliance with Section 21 be clearly stated in the sworn statements of the apprehending officers, along with the steps taken to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Enforced as a mandatory policy to filter poorly built-up drug cases.
• Section 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the presumption of innocence in all criminal prosecutions until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s failure to establish the chain of custody meant this presumption was not overcome.

Senior Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (Chairperson), Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando, Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, and Edgardo L. Delos Santos concurred.