G.R. No. 227873, November 14, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, V. BERNARDO RENDON Y PASCUA @ “TATS,” APPELLANT.
FACTS
Appellant Bernardo Rendon was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on November 6, 2009, a buy-bust team conducted an operation in Muntinlupa City. PO3 Dennis Bornilla acted as poseur-buyer and purchased a plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) from appellant for PHP 200.00. Upon consummation of the sale, appellant was arrested. The seized item was marked, submitted to the crime laboratory, and tested positive for shabu. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling that all elements of the crime were established and that there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165.
Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was a victim of frame-up. He testified that he was apprehended by a man in sando and shorts while walking home from a wake, forced into a jeepney, and brought to the city hall where he was coerced to admit to an offense he did not commit. He identified his apprehending officer as PO3 Bornilla. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the core issue centered on the integrity of the seized drug due to alleged procedural lapses in the chain of custody.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug, thereby proving appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the appellate court’s decision and ACQUITTED appellant. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody. Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, mandates that the seizure, marking, and inventory of seized items must be conducted immediately after arrest and in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. This procedure is designed to insulate the process from doubt regarding evidence switching, planting, or contamination.
The Court found that the buy-bust team committed a fatal procedural lapse. Only a media representative was present during the inventory; there was no representative from the DOJ or any elected public official. While the law allows non-compliance under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must convincingly explain the deviation. Here, PO3 Bornilla’s justification—that they lacked time to wait for the other witnesses—was deemed unacceptable. The team had ample opportunity from the planning stage to ensure the presence of all required witnesses. The prosecution’s evidence, including the sworn statements, failed to provide a sufficient explanation for this non-observance. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were compromised. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty could not stand when there was a clear disregard of a specific procedural safeguard. Therefore, appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.