G.R. No. 238617 , November 14, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ALVIN BAMBICO Y CARVAJAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

This case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Navotas City Police against accused-appellant Alvin Bambico on September 25, 2011. The prosecution alleged that during the operation, one plastic sachet of shabu was sold to a poseur-buyer, leading to Bambico’s arrest. A subsequent search yielded two more plastic sachets. The seized items were then brought to a barangay hall where marking, inventory, and photography were conducted in the presence of Barangay Chairman Totit Ocampo. Forensic examination confirmed the substances were methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Bambico presented a different version, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested while having dinner at a neighborhood eatery after police failed to catch another person. He alleged the arrest was a frame-up. The Regional Trial Court convicted Bambico for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Both courts ruled the prosecution established all elements of the crimes and that the chain of custody over the seized drugs was substantially complied with, preserving their integrity.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Bambico’s conviction despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted accused-appellant Alvin Bambico. The Court emphasized that in drug-related cases, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody. A critical link in this chain is the conduct of the physical inventory and photography of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, and the required witnesses—namely, an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice, and a media representative—as mandated by law at the time of the offense.
The records revealed a fatal procedural lapse. While the inventory was witnessed by a Barangay Chairman, there was a complete absence of the other two indispensable witnesses: a DOJ representative and a media representative. The prosecution offered no explanation for this glaring omission. It did not even attempt to acknowledge the deviation or provide a justifiable ground for the non-compliance. The apprehending officers’ failure to secure the presence of these witnesses, without any stated reason, compromised the integrity of the seized items from the very outset. This breach creates reasonable doubt as to whether the evidence presented in court was the same substance seized from the accused. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove Bambico’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence prevails, and his acquittal is warranted.