People v. Mamarinta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellants Andidato P. Mamarinta and Jack A. Batuan were charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165. The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted on July 19, 2015, where Mamarinta allegedly sold one sachet of shabu to a poseur-buyer, PO1 Rodrigo J. Nidoy, Jr., and both accused were found in possession of other sachets of shabu. The operation involved a confidential informant, the formation of an entrapment team, and the use of marked money. After the alleged transaction and arrest, the seized items were marked, an inventory was prepared in the presence of a barangay kagawad, and photographs were taken. The sachets were then submitted to the forensic chemist who confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 164, found both accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Mamarinta and Batuan were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for selling shabu (Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165). Mamarinta was also found guilty of possession of shabu (Sec. 11, Art. II, RA 9165) and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 16 years imprisonment and a fine of P300,000.00. Batuan was similarly found guilty of possession of shabu and received the same penalty. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. The Petition: Accused-appellants filed an ordinary appeal to the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellants for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 due to procedural lapses in the chain of custody. Whether the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640, were substantially complied with, specifically regarding the presence of required witnesses during inventory.
Ruling
The appeal is meritorious. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals. Accused-appellants Andidato Mamarinta and Jack Batuan were ACQUITTED of the crimes charged against them and ordered to be immediately released, unless lawfully held for other reasons.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165: The Court found that the appeal was meritorious, leading to the reversal of the conviction. The core of the Court's reasoning centered on the procedural lapses in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, which are the corpus delicti of the crimes. The Court emphasized that the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs must be established with moral certainty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating strict observance of Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640. On the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165: The operation occurred on July 19, 2015, making R.A. 10640 applicable as it took effect on July 23, 2014. The amended Section 21 requires the physical inventory and photograph of seized items to be conducted in the presence of the accused or their representative, an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. The Court found that only a barangay kagawad was present during the inventory, and the prosecution failed to adequately prove genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of media or NPS representatives. The testimonies regarding attempts to contact these representatives were deemed hearsay as the individuals who made the calls were not presented as witnesses. The Court reiterated that mere statements of unavailability are insufficient to justify non-compliance, and the prosecution must prove justifiable grounds for non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Since these requirements were not met, the non-compliance with Section 21 was inexcusable, rendering the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid. Consequently, the Court held that the acquittal of the accused-appellants was in order.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution has the positive duty to demonstrate observance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640. Failure to comply with the procedural requirements, without justifiable grounds and proper preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, renders the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, necessitating acquittal.