G.R. No. 254208, August 16, 2022
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MA. DEL PILAR ROSARIO C. CASA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ma. Del Pilar Rosario C. Casa was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), pertaining to illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The case stemmed from a buy-bust operation where police officers allegedly seized shabu from the accused. The prosecution’s evidence included the seized drugs and the related documentation of the operation.
The procedural journey to the Supreme Court involved a review of the chain of custody over the seized drugs. The defense highlighted alleged breaches in the prescribed procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165, particularly concerning the location where the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were conducted. The items were inventoried and photographed at the office of the Special Operations Group (SOG-NOPPO) rather than at the place of arrest, without a clearly articulated justification for this deviation in the records.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized dangerous drugs, thereby proving the corpus delicti’s identity and integrity beyond reasonable doubt, despite the alleged procedural deviations during the inventory.

RULING

The Supreme Court En Banc acquitted the accused-appellant. Justice Kho, in a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurred in the result but dissented on one specific legal point. The ponencia, penned by Chief Justice Gesmundo, held that the prosecution failed to establish every link in the chain of custody. A critical gap was found in the fourth link, which pertains to the forensic chemist’s custody. The stipulations regarding the forensic chemist’s testimony lacked details on the condition of the seized items while in her custody and the preservation measures she undertook after qualitative examination. This omission created reasonable doubt regarding the integrity and identity of the evidence presented in court, warranting acquittal.
Justice Kho fully agreed with this conclusion based on the broken fourth link. However, he dissented from the ponencia’s additional ruling that the police also failed to justify conducting the inventory at the police station instead of the place of seizure. Justice Kho argued that the plain language of Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, mandates that for warrantless seizures, the inventory and photographing shall be conducted at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team, whichever is practicable. He contended that the Court should not impose a requirement for justification when the law itself designates the police station as the primary venue for this step in warrantless arrests. He warned that the majority’s interpretation, which requires justification for not conducting the inventory at the place of seizure, imposes a stricter standard than the statute and could lead to unnecessary acquittals even when the law’s explicit terms are followed. Despite this doctrinal dissent, he concurred in the acquittal due to the fatal break in the chain of custody at the forensic chemist stage.