March 13, 2017

G.R. No. 225965

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The Facts

The instant case stemmed from two (2) Informations filed before the RTC accusing Macapundag of
violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, viz.:

The prosecution alleged that at around 8:00 to 8:30 in the morning of March 14, 2009, an informant
tipped the Caloocan City Police that a certain individual known as alias "Popoy" was selling shabu in
Baltazar Street, 10th Avenue, Caloocan City. Acting on the tip, Police Chief Inspector (PCI)
Christopher Prangan (PCI Prangan) ordered the conduct of a buy-bust operation in coordination with
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), with Police Officer 3 (P03) George Ardedon (P03
Ardedon) designated as poseur-buyer, and Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO 1) Amel Victoriano (SPOl
Victoriano) and Police Officer 2 (P02) Jeffred Pacis (P02 Pacis), as back-up officers.8 After the team's
final briefing, they proceeded to the target area where they saw Macapundag, who was then identified
by the informant as "Popoy." Consequently, P03 Ardedon approached Macapundag and
retorted "Brod, pakuha," followed by "Brod, paiskor naman." Macapundag replied "Magkano?," to
which P03 Ardedon responded "Tatlong piso fang," and simultaneously handed the three (3) marked
₱l00.00 bills. Macapundag then took four (4) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance,
gave one to P03 Ardedon, and returned the other three (3) back to his pocket. Upon receiving the
sachet, P03 Ardedon gave the pre-arranged signal by holding his nape and then held Macapundag,
as the back-up officers rushed to the scene. P03 Ardedon marked the plastic sachet he purchased from
Macapundag, while SPO 1 Victoriano marked the other three (3) recovered from his pocket.9

Thereafter, they brought Macapundag to the police station, where the seized items were turned over
to P02 Randulfo Hipolito (P02 Hipolito), the investigator on duty.10 Later, P02 Hipolito brought the
items to the crime laboratory for physical examination.11 Eventually, Forensic Chemical

Officer-PC! Stella Ebuen (PCI Ebuen) examined the specimen, which tested positive for ephedrine, a
dangerous drug.12

In his defense, Macapundag denied the charges against him. He testified that he was arrested on
March 12, 2009, and not on March 14, 2009 as alleged by the prosecution. At around noon of the said
date, he claimed that he was just sitting in his house when three (3) armed men suddenly entered and
looked for a certain "Rei." He told them that "Rei" lived in the other house, but one of the men held
and handcuffed him. He was then brought to the Sangandaan Police Station where he was detained
in a small cell. Later, he was asked to call some relatives. When he replied that he only has his
daughter, SPO 1 Victoriano hit him on the chest. After a few days, the police demanded ₱50,000.00
from Macapundag's daughter for his release. When he told them that he did not have that amount, he
was hit again. On March 15, 2009, he was brought to the house of the fiscal for inquest.13

The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Macapundag's conviction for illegal sale and
illegal possession of dangerous drugs, as defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of
RA 9165, should be upheld.

The Court's Ruling

Macapundag was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections
5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. In order to secure the conviction of an accused charged with illegal
1avvphi1

sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the: (a) identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (b) delivery of the thing sold and the payment.23 On the other hand,
the prosecution must establish the following elements to convict an accused charged with illegal
possession of dangerous drugs: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a
dangerous drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug.24

Notably, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond reasonable doubt.
In order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution
has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same. It must be able to account for each link in
the chain of custody over the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in
court as evidence of the corpus delicti.25

In the Appellant's Brief,26 Macapundag prayed for his acquittal in view of the police officers' non-
compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).
Particularly, he claims that they did not make any inventory and failed to take pictures of the
confiscated drugs along with him at the scene of his arrest. There was also no justification given as to
why they failed to comply with these requirements of law.27

The appeal is meritorious.

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody rule, outlining the procedure police
officers must follow in handling the seized drugs, in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary
value.28 Under the said section, the apprehending team shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the
accused or the person from whom the items were seized, his representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, and the seized
drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from
confiscation for examination.29

In this case, the prosecution was able to establish that P03 Ardedon (with respect to the sachet handed
over by Macapundag to him) and SPOl Victoriano (with respect to the three sachets recovered from
Macapundag upon his arrest) marked the seized items immediately at the place of arrest. However,
the prosecution's witnesses failed to state whether or not the police officers inventoried and
photographed the seized sachets in the presence of Macapundag or his representative. Likewise, they
were silent as to the presence of the other required witnesses, i.e., a representative from the
Department of Justice (DOJ), any elected public official, and a member of the press.30 In fact, the
prosecution did not even offer any inventory of the seized items or photographs thereof as
evidence.31 In this relation, it is observed that the Evidence Acknowledgement Receipt 32 and the
Affidavit of Attestation,33 which form part of the evidence of the prosecution, likewise failed to disclose
that the seized items were actually inventoried or photographed in accordance with the parameters
provided by Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR; thus, their submission cannot constitute compliance
with the law.

In the present case, the prosecution did not even bother to explain why the inventory and photograph
of the seized evidence were not made either in the place of seizure and arrest or at the police station,
as required by the IRR in case of warrantless arrests, or why the marking of the seized item was not
made at the place of seizure in the presence of Macapundag. It was also silent on the absence of a
representative from the DOJ, the media and an elected public official to witness the inventory and
receive copies of the same. Similarly unexplained was the lack of inventory and photographs of the
seized items.40 Accordingly, the plurality of the breaches of procedure committed by the police officers,
unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt against the accused, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been
compromised.41 It has been repeated in jurisprudence that the procedure in Section 21 of RA 9165 is a
matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse,
ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects.42

With the foregoing pronouncement, the Court finds petitioner's acquittal in order. As such, it is
unnecessary to delve into the other issues raised in this case.