FACTS:

Alsarif Bintaib, also known as "Leng," was found guilty of illegal sale of shabu in a buy-bust operation conducted by PDEA operatives. Intelligence Officer 2 Abdulsokor Abdulgani acted as the poseur-buyer and successfully purchased a sachet of shabu from Bintaib, which was marked with the initials "ASA" at the PDEA office. The marked sachet was sent to the crime laboratory where it was confirmed to be shabu. Bintaib argued that there was no valid buy-bust operation as there was no payment or consideration for the drugs and that there were procedural lapses in the chain of custody. The RTC convicted Bintaib, and the CA affirmed the decision in its entirety. The case has now been elevated to the Supreme Court for final review.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the lower courts have misapplied the procedure for handling confiscated drugs under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

2. Whether the strict compliance with the procedure under Section 21 is a matter of substantive law or a simple technicality.

3. Whether the presence of insulating witnesses during the actual inventory and photographing of seized drugs is mandatory under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

4. Whether the failure to comply with the requirement of the presence of insulating witnesses renders the seizure and custody of the illegal drug invalid.

5. Whether there was compliance with the prescribed procedural requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 in the preservation of the confiscated dangerous drugs.

6. Whether there was an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated dangerous drugs.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court acknowledges that the lower courts have misapplied the procedure for handling confiscated drugs under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, resulting in reversed decisions and improper convictions.

2. The Supreme Court emphasizes that the procedure under Section 21 is a matter of substantive law and not a mere technicality. It was crafted to address potential police abuses and ensure the identity and integrity of seized drugs. Thus, strict compliance with the procedure is required.

3. The presence of insulating witnesses during the actual inventory and photographing of seized drugs is mandatory under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Mere signature or presence of the insulating witness at the time of signing the inventory is not enough to comply with the requirement. The law specifically mandates that the witnesses be present while the actual inventory and photographing of the seized drugs are happening.

4. Failure to comply with the requirement of the presence of insulating witnesses does not automatically render the seizure and custody of the illegal drug invalid. The saving clause in the IRR, which is now incorporated in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, may operate if there are justifiable grounds for non-compliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are preserved. However, in this case, the prosecution failed to satisfy both conditions as they did not offer any kind of evidence explaining the absence of insulating witnesses during the actual inventory and failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the confiscated item.

5. The Court held that there was non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 in the preservation of the confiscated dangerous drugs. The marking of the item was not done immediately after the arrest and there was a significant break in the chain of custody, casting doubt on the prosecution evidence.

6. In the absence of compliance with the prescribed procedural requirement, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated dangerous drugs. Thus, the accused is entitled to an acquittal for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

• The existence of the drugs is the crucial element that must be proven in prosecuting an offense involving illegal drugs.

• The identity and integrity of the confiscated drugs must be preserved to establish the existence of the drug itself.

• Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides the procedural guidelines for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and surrendered dangerous drugs.

• The apprehending team must strictly comply with the procedure under Section 21 to prevent potential tampering with evidence.

• The procedure under Section 21 is a matter of substantive law and not a mere technicality, emphasizing the need for strict compliance.

• The presence of insulating witnesses during the actual inventory and photographing of seized drugs is vital to prevent switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. (R.A. No. 9165, Section 21)

• Failure to comply with the requirement of the presence of insulating witnesses can render the seizure and custody of the illegal drug invalid, unless there are justifiable grounds for non-compliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are preserved. (R.A. No. 9165, Section 21)

• The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused and is fundamentally unsound when there are lapses in the procedures undertaken. (People v. Pagaura)

• The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items, which should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. Prompt marking is important to set apart the evidence from other material and prevent switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. (People v. Gonzalez)

• The burden of proof in criminal cases never shifts and the accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Compliance with the prescribed procedural requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and the preservation of the corpus delicti are essential in sustaining a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

• The prosecution has the duty to prove compliance with the prescribed procedural requirement and, in the absence of such compliance, should establish an unbroken chain of custody.