G.R. No. 263341, February 4, 2025
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALFREDO ACDANG Y BALANGEN AND ALLAN ACDANG Y BALANGEN, Accused, ALLAN ACDANG Y BALANGEN, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The case involves accused-appellant Allan Acdang y Balangen and his brother Alfredo, who were apprehended for cultivating marijuana plants at two plantation sites in Sitio Mocgao. The apprehending team (Team Omega) conducted a planned operation to destroy the plantations. During the marking, photographing, and inventory of the seized marijuana plants, Team Omega failed to secure the mandatory insulating witnesses required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). Specifically, there were no representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, and an elected public official present at the plantation sites and at Alfredo’s house during the inventory. The prosecution admitted that a media representative signed the inventory only hours later at the PDEA office. The prosecution argued that noncompliance was justified due to the remoteness of the area, the seven-hour hike, and the distance to the nearest police station, and that there was substantial compliance. The Concurring Opinion emphasizes that Team Omega’s operation was planned in advance, as evidenced by testimony that they knew about the two plantations and the name “Alfredo” two days prior. Despite this foreknowledge and the presence of a “lupon” (barangay officials) in the vicinity, the team made no effort to secure the required witnesses.

ISSUE

Whether the apprehending team’s failure to secure the mandatory insulating witnesses during the inventory of seized dangerous drugs, without justifiable reason, warrants the acquittal of the accused-appellant due to a broken chain of custody.

RULING

The Concurring Opinion concurs in the acquittal of accused-appellant Allan Acdang. It rules that strict compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is mandatory, regardless of the quantity of drugs seized. The failure of Team Omega to secure the required witnesses (DOJ, media, and elected public official) during the inventory at the seizure sites was unjustified. The operation was planned, and the team had sufficient time and opportunity to ensure the witnesses’ presence but showed no effort to do so, even with barangay officials nearby. The opinion rejects the prosecution’s justifications of remoteness and distance, as well as the dissenting views that deviations may be permissible for large quantities or corporeal items like plants. It cites the doctrine in People v. Uy that the law makes no distinction between large or small amounts of drugs, and strict procedural safeguards are obligatory to prevent risks like evidence planting, especially in light of allegations of irregularities in anti-drug operations.