G.R. No. 230070 . March 14, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NESTOR AÑO y DEL REMEDIOS, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

This case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted on August 3, 2009, in San Mateo, Rizal. Based on information regarding accused-appellant Nestor Año’s drug activities, a police team was formed with PO2 Ruel Ayad as the poseur-buyer. The team proceeded to Año’s residence, where PO2 Ayad successfully purchased a plastic sachet of suspected shabu for PHP 200.00. Upon consummation of the sale, Año was arrested after a brief chase. Due to commotion caused by Año’s relatives, the team moved approximately 100 meters away to mark the seized item and conduct the inventory, which was witnessed by Barangay Captain Leo Buenviaje. The sachet was later confirmed by forensic examination to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Año denied the accusation, claiming he was forcibly arrested during a family celebration without any buy-bust operation taking place. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 , a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Both courts held that the prosecution established all elements of the crime and complied with the chain of custody requirements.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Año’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Año due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, which compromised the integrity of the corpus delicti. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, it is imperative to account for each link in the chain—from seizure, marking, inventory, laboratory examination, to presentation in court—to preserve the identity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug.
The Court found a critical breach in the first link of the chain. The buy-bust team failed to strictly comply with the witness requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as it existed at the time of the offense. The law mandated that the physical inventory and photographing of seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice, AND an elected public official. Here, only a barangay captain was present. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this deviation, such as explaining earnest efforts to secure the presence of the other required witnesses. The transfer of the inventory site 100 meters away due to commotion did not excuse the absence of the other insulating witnesses. This procedural lapse created reasonable doubt as to whether the item presented in court was the same one seized from Año, warranting his acquittal.