G.R. No. 231917 July 3, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Ansari Sarip y Bantog, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

On May 19, 2011, a buy-bust operation was conducted against Ansari Sarip based on a confidential informant’s tip. PO2 Jerry Michael Baranda led the team, with the informant acting as poseur-buyer. From a distance of 10-12 meters, PO2 Baranda and PO2 Hussein observed the informant hand marked money to Sarip in exchange for a plastic sachet. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the team arrested Sarip after a brief scuffle. The seized sachet and the marked money recovered from Sarip’s pocket were later marked at the police station due to a growing crowd at the scene. Laboratory examination confirmed the sachet contained 0.03 gram of shabu.
Sarip presented a different version, claiming he was merely buying dinner when he was accosted by men in civilian clothes, later identified as police officers. He alleged they asked him for money for his release and that an item was only placed on a table and photographed at the station. The RTC found him guilty of violating Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs), a decision affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Sarip’s conviction despite alleged irregularities in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Sarip. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which is crucial in proving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The buy-bust team committed unjustified deviations from the mandatory procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The marking of the seized item was not done immediately at the place of arrest but only later at the police station, with the officers merely citing the presence of a crowd without showing any genuine threat to their safety or to the integrity of the evidence. This failure to comply with the witness requirement—that the inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official—was not excused.
The legal logic is strict: non-compliance with Section 21 is allowed only if the prosecution proves a justifiable ground for such deviation and, crucially, that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Here, the prosecution offered no convincing justification for not conducting the marking and inventory at the scene. This lapse, coupled with the failure to secure the required insulating witnesses, created reasonable doubt on whether the shabu presented in court was the same item seized from Sarip. Consequently, his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.