G.R. No. 231133 , June 6, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Madrona Otico, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Marvin Madrona Otico was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution’s case relied on the testimonies of police officers who conducted a buy-bust operation. The officers claimed to have witnessed the transaction from a distance of ten meters, where a civilian agent acted as the poseur-buyer. Following the arrest, the police conducted an inventory and photographing of the seized item, a 0.02 gram of suspected shabu. However, the required witnesses under the law—specifically, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice—were not present during this inventory. Only an elected public official was present as a witness.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Court acquitted the accused-appellant. The acquittal was anchored on two primary grounds. First, the eyewitness accounts of the police officers were deemed incredible. The officers were ten meters away from the alleged transaction, which cast serious doubt on their ability to clearly observe and credibly testify about the exchange of the drug and the buy-bust money between the poseur-buyer and the appellant. Second, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drug. The police did not comply with the witness requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 , as only an elected public official was present during the inventory. The prosecution offered no justifiable grounds for this non-compliance. The absence of the insulating witnesses compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, creating reasonable doubt as to whether the substance presented in court was the same one allegedly seized from the appellant. The Court emphasized that while the law’s procedural requirements are designed to safeguard against evidence tampering, non-compliance absent justifiable grounds and proof of preserved integrity warrants acquittal.