G.R. No. 234291 . October 03, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JAYSON BOMBIO Y DE VILLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jayson Bombio was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on April 11, 2014, a buy-bust operation was conducted in San Pablo City. PO1 Jesus Jerson Exconde acted as poseur-buyer and purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from Bombio, who was identified as “Ogie.” Upon arrest, four more sachets were allegedly recovered from a Hershey’s tin can in Bombio’s possession. The seized items were marked at the scene, and an inventory was later conducted at the barangay hall and police station in the presence of local officials.
Bombio presented a different version, claiming he was merely eating near the railroad tracks when he was arbitrarily arrested by persons in civilian clothes who asked for “Ogie.” He denied any sale or possession of illegal drugs and asserted that no frisking occurred at the scene. The Regional Trial Court convicted Bombio, giving weight to the police officers’ testimonies and the presumption of regularity in their duties. The Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction, prompting the present appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Bombio’s conviction despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted accused-appellant Jayson Bombio. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the State must prove not only the elements of the crimes but also the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti through an unbroken chain of custody. The law requires the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. These witnesses must be present at the time of seizure and inventory to ensure the integrity of the evidence from the moment of confiscation.
Here, the prosecution failed to establish compliance with these mandatory safeguards. The inventory and photographing were not conducted immediately at the place of arrest but later at the barangay hall and police station. Crucially, the required insulating witnesses were not present during the initial seizure. The police officers merely claimed that representatives were present during the later inventory, without specifying who they were or proving their qualifications as mandated. This procedural lapse created reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the drugs presented in court as those allegedly seized from Bombio. The presumption of regularity in police duties cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence when the State fails to account for glaring deviations from the chain of custody protocol. Consequently, the evidence of guilt did not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.