G.R. No. 251741 , June 14, 2023
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Chris John Custodio y Argote a.k.a. “Bolongkoy”, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Chris John Custodio was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on October 19, 2015, in Dumaguete City. PO3 Al Lester Avila acted as poseur-buyer and purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from accused-appellant. Upon arrest, a search yielded five more plastic sachets, two tin foils, two lighters, and the buy-bust money. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the police office in the presence of a barangay kagawad, a DOJ representative, and a media practitioner. The items were then submitted to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals and subsequently by the Supreme Court in a Resolution dated November 11, 2021. Accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court’s Resolution affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 should be reconsidered, particularly in light of the alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court, in its Resolution dated June 14, 2023, DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration. The Court held that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody and complied with the substantive requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165. The buy-bust team immediately marked the seized items at the place of arrest. The inventory and photography were conducted at the police office in the presence of the required witnesses (a barangay official, a DOJ representative, and a media representative), which was justified for security reasons. The Court ruled that the absence of these witnesses during the actual seizure and marking does not per se render the evidence inadmissible, as the law requires their presence only during the inventory. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved from the time of seizure, through laboratory examination, and up to their presentation in court. The defenses of denial and frame-up were rejected for being unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, accused-appellant’s guilt for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.