G.R. No. 218914 , July 30, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Henry De Vera y Medina, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

This case involves an appeal from a conviction for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The accused-appellant, Henry De Vera y Medina, was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs following a buy-bust operation. The prosecution’s evidence hinged on the drugs seized during the operation and the corresponding documentation of their custody.
The defense centered on the alleged failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165. Specifically, the records indicated no attempt by the buy-bust team to secure the presence of the three insulating witnesses—an elected public official, a Department of Justice representative, and a media representative—during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items immediately after confiscation. The prosecution did not offer any explanation for this lapse.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs, given the police’s non-compliance with the witness requirements and procedural safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Court acquitted the accused-appellant. The ruling, as concurred with by Justice Peralta, emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody. The buy-bust team’s complete non-observance of the witness mandate under Section 21 was a fatal procedural flaw. There was no attempt to secure any of the required witnesses, and the prosecution neither conceded these lapses nor provided any justifiable ground for the non-compliance.
Justice Peralta’s Separate Concurring Opinion elaborated on the legal landscape governing Section 21. He noted that RA 10640, which amended RA 9165, now requires only two witnesses: an elected public official and either a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media. This amendment, as reflected in the legislative deliberations cited, was intended to address practical difficulties in compliance, such as the unavailability of witnesses in remote areas or safety concerns for officers at the place of seizure. The law and its implementing rules include a saving clause, stating that non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not invalidate the seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence are preserved. However, in this case, the prosecution did not invoke this clause or present any justification. The absolute absence of any insulating witness, without explanation, failed to meet the standard for proving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.