G.R. No. 233702 , June 20, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Gamboa y Francisco @ “Kuya,” 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 was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution’s evidence hinged on a buy-bust operation where items were allegedly seized from the appellant.
The procedural journey of the seized items became the focal point. The marking of the seized drugs was conducted only in the presence of the accused-appellant and a media representative. The prosecution failed to comply with the witness requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165, as it did not secure the presence of an elected public official and a representative from the Department of Justice during the inventory. No justifiable reason was provided by the apprehending officers for this non-compliance.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs, given the law enforcement’s non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Court acquitted the accused-appellant. The ruling, as concurred with by Justice Peralta, emphasized the imperative of strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items. The law requires the presence of insulating witnesses—originally, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official—during the physical inventory and photographing to prevent planting, switching, or contamination of evidence.
The prosecution’s failure to provide any justifiable ground for conducting the inventory without the required witnesses was fatal to its case. This lapse created reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from the appellant. The Court clarified that while Republic Act No. 10640 later amended Section 21 to require only two witnesses (an elected public official and either a National Prosecution Service or media representative), and provided a saving clause for justifiable non-compliance, these amendments do not apply retroactively to this case. The original strict requirements govern, and the prosecution’s unexplained deviation warrants acquittal. The integrity of the evidence was not preserved, breaking the chain of custody.