G.R. No. 246284 , June 16, 2021
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Michael Andanar y Siendo alias “Kokak” and Mary Jane Garbo y Mariposque, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Michael Andanar and Mary Jane Garbo were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Andanar was charged with two counts of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) for selling shabu to a poseur-buyer and to another individual on July 28, 2010. Garbo was charged with violation of Section 6, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal maintenance of a den, dive, or resort). The prosecution’s evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on a tip. SPO2 Noel Antillon, Jr. acted as poseur-buyer. He and an informant met Garbo, who invited them inside her house to wait for Andanar. Andanar arrived and sold a sachet of shabu to SPO2 Antillon, Jr. for P500.00. Andanar also sold another sachet to another individual, Moriel Gutierrez, inside the house. After the transaction, the buy-bust team arrested Andanar, Garbo, and Gutierrez. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the police station, not at the place of arrest, and without the presence of insulating witnesses as required under Section 21 of RA 9165. The defense claimed frame-up and denial. The RTC convicted both accused. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellants despite alleged procedural lapses in the chain of custody of the seized drugs and insufficiency of evidence to prove the crimes charged.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED both accused-appellants.
The Court held that for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs, it is essential to establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, ensuring its integrity and evidentiary value through an unbroken chain of custody. The prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory procedures under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The inventory and photographing of the seized items were conducted at the police station, not at the place of arrest or the nearest police station, and more importantly, were done without the presence of any of the required insulating witnesses (a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, or any elected public official). The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for these lapses. These procedural breaches compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, leading to reasonable doubt as to their identity.
Regarding the charge of illegal maintenance of a drug den against Garbo, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove all its elements. The evidence did not establish that Garbo intentionally maintained the house as a place where dangerous drugs were used or sold in a habitual manner. The single, isolated incident of a drug sale inside the house, without more, does not constitute the crime of maintenance of a drug den, which requires proof of regularity of use as a drug venue. Consequently, the guilt of the accused-appellants was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.