G.R. No. 250927, November 29, 2022
MARIO NISPEROS Y PADILLA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Mario Nisperos was convicted for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted, leading to his apprehension at 11:30 a.m. The seized drugs were marked and inventoried, but this inventory commenced only at 12:00 noon, a half-hour delay. While the Barangay Captain was present at the place of transaction, the required Department of Justice (DOJ) representative arrived only at noon. The inventory thus proceeded only upon the DOJ representative’s arrival.
The ponencia, in acquitting the accused, ruled that the buy-bust team unjustifiably deviated from the chain of custody rule. It emphasized that the mandatory witnesses under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 need only be “readily available” to witness the immediately ensuing inventory, not necessarily the arrest and seizure itself. The 30-minute delay, attributable to the tardy arrival of the DOJ representative, was deemed an unjustified break in the chain, casting reasonable doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti.

ISSUE

Whether the 30-minute delay between the seizure of the drugs and the conduct of the inventory, due to the absence of a required witness, constitutes an unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule warranting acquittal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court En Banc acquitted the petitioner. Justice Caguioa, in his Concurring Opinion, expounded on the legal logic. He clarified that chain of custody is fundamentally a method of authenticating real evidence, a threshold requirement for admissibility. For dangerous drugs, which are non-unique objects not readily identifiable, a more stringent standard is required to render it improbable that the item has been exchanged, contaminated, or tampered with. Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended, provides this specific, exacting procedure.
The requirement for witnesses to be “readily available” is crucial to this procedure. It ensures the inventory can be conducted immediately after seizure, which is vital to preserving the evidentiary value of the drugs from the point of confiscation. The 30-minute hiatus, because the buy-bust team failed to ensure the DOJ representative’s immediate availability, created a gap in the chain. This gap breached the stringent safeguards designed to prevent planting, contamination, or switching of evidence. The prosecution failed to offer any justifiable reason for this deviation. Consequently, the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti were compromised, giving rise to reasonable doubt on the petitioner’s guilt. The ruling reinforces that strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is imperative, and deviations absent credible justification warrant acquittal to protect constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.