G.R. No. 232249 . September 03, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILT SAM BANGALAN Y MAMBA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

This case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted against accused-appellant Wilt Sam Bangalan on July 27, 2012, in Tuguegarao City. The police team allegedly recovered 8.12 grams of dried marijuana leaves from him. The seized item was then brought to the police station where it was marked, photographed, and inventoried in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Remigio Cabildo. A forensic examination later confirmed the substance to be marijuana. Bangalan denied the charges, claiming he was forcibly taken, assaulted, and framed by police officers who were inquiring about another individual.
The Regional Trial Court found Bangalan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but increased the fine. Bangalan appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted Bangalan. The Court emphasized that in drug-related cases, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through a strict account of the chain of custody. The law requires that the inventory and photography of seized items be conducted immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused or his representative, and specific witnesses: a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice, and any elected public official, as mandated by RA 9165 prior to its amendment.
The Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with this mandatory witness requirement. Only a Barangay Kagawad was present during the inventory. The prosecution did not offer any explanation for the absence of the required media and DOJ representatives, nor did it demonstrate that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure their presence. Mere statements of unavailability, without actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, do not constitute a justifiable ground for non-compliance. The saving clause allowing deviations from the procedure applies only when the prosecution satisfactorily explains the lapse and proves the integrity of the evidence was preserved. Here, the unexplained absence of two crucial witnesses compromised the establishment of the chain of custody, creating reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized drug. Consequently, the evidence for the prosecution was deemed insufficient to sustain a conviction.