Nisperos v. People
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mario Nisperos y Padilla was charged with Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for allegedly selling and distributing one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.7603 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to PO1 Michael B. Turingan, who acted as the poseur-buyer. The transaction involved P3,000.00 in buy-bust money. The operation was conducted by members of the 2nd Regional Public Safety Battalion (2PRSB), in coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City, Branch 1, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with the modification that petitioner shall not be eligible for parole. Petitioner assails the CA's Decision and Resolution through a Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner argues that the apprehending team failed to strictly follow the chain of custody rule as laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. Specifically, he contends that the required witnesses were not present at the time of his arrest, the marking of the evidence was belated, the chain of custody was not properly proven, and copies of the Receipt/s of Property Seized were not given to him.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the apprehending team complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640. 2. Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug were properly preserved. 3. Whether the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Ruling
The appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 5, 2019 and Resolution dated November 7, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11472 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Mario Nisperos y Padilla is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Petitioner is ORDERED TO PAY the docket fee deficiency of P80.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the buy-bust team unjustifiably deviated from the chain of custody rule. While the sale occurred at 11:30 AM, the inventory took place at 12:00 PM, half an hour later. The Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, Ferdinand Gangan, arrived only at 12 noon, and without his presence, the inventory could not proceed. This delay, caused by the tardy arrival of a required witness, was not a justifiable ground for non-compliance. The Court emphasized that the buy-bust team should have ensured all required witnesses were readily available to conduct the inventory immediately after seizure and confiscation. The belated marking of the seized items during the inventory further compromised the chain of custody, as the first link was not properly established. The Court reiterated that the mandatory witnesses must be present "at or near" the place of apprehension to witness the immediately ensuing inventory. On Issue 2: Due to the unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule, specifically the belated marking of the evidence and the delay in conducting the inventory caused by the unavailability of a mandatory witness, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti (the seized drugs) were seriously compromised. The Court held that when the first link of the chain of custody is not established, there is no chain to speak of. The failure to strictly follow the mandatory requirements under the chain of custody rule, without justifiable grounds, renders the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, thus creating reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. On Issue 3: Based on the failure to establish a proper chain of custody, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The procedural lapses, including the belated marking of the seized drugs and the delay in the inventory due to the absence of a required witness, cast doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, the petitioner must be acquitted.
Main Doctrine
The chain of custody rule in drug cases, as mandated by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, requires strict compliance. This includes the immediate marking of seized items at the place of confiscation in the presence of the offender, and the conduct of inventory and photography immediately thereafter in the presence of the accused and mandatory witnesses. Any deviation from these procedures, such as a significant delay in marking or inventory due to the unavailability of witnesses, unjustifiably compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, leading to acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove justifiable grounds for non-compliance and the preservation of the evidence's integrity.