G.R. No. 240431 , July 7, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARLON BOB CARANIAGAN SANICO A.K.A. “MARLON BOB,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

This case involves a buy-bust operation against the accused-appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs). The police officers conducted an inventory of the seized items in the presence of the three required witnesses—a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), a media representative, and an elected public official. However, this inventory was conducted a day after the seizure of the items. The police officers explained that they were unable to secure the attendance of the required witnesses on the same day of the operation.

ISSUE

Whether the police officers’ failure to conduct the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation, and in the presence of the required witnesses, constitutes a breach of the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, warranting the acquittal of the accused-appellant.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court, through the concurring opinion of Justice Caguioa, emphasized that strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is fundamental. The law requires the apprehending team to physically inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official. The phrase “immediately after seizure and confiscation” means the inventory and photographing should be done at the place of apprehension, or if not practicable, at the nearest police station or office. Crucially, the required witnesses must be physically present at the time of or near the place of apprehension to insulate the process from the possibility of evidence planting, especially in planned operations like a buy-bust.
In this case, the inventory was conducted a day after the seizure, a considerable lapse of time during which the integrity of the evidence could have been compromised. The police officers’ failure to secure the witnesses on the same day and to conduct the inventory immediately constituted unjustified non-compliance with the procedural safeguards. This failure adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination and the integrity of the corpus delicti. Therefore, the accused-appellant must be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. The concurring opinion voted to GRANT the petition and acquit the accused-appellant.