FACTS:

The case involves the appeal filed by accused-appellant Bryan Deliña y Lim (Deliña) from the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) finding Deliña guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The case originated from an information filed on April 15, 2014, charging Deliña with illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Deliña pleaded not guilty during arraignment, and the trial proceeded.

According to the version of the prosecution, surveillance was conducted on Deliña's house in Barangay Suba, Calatrava after receiving reports on his illegal drug activities. On April 14, 2014, the Calatrava Police Station received information from an asset that Deliña was selling drugs. The police instructed the asset to buy shabu worth P400. When the asset confirmed that he was able to buy drugs, a buy-bust operation was conducted. The asset gave Deliña marked money, and Deliña handed over two sachets of a white crystalline substance. The police team rushed to the area and arrested Deliña. Deliña was found in possession of the marked money, and two sachets of the substance were taken from him. The seized items were later marked and subjected to inventory in the presence of the Department of Justice (DOJ), media, and barangay representatives. The specimens were then sent to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination, which confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Deliña, on the other hand, denied the charges and claimed that he was framed. He alleged that on the day of his arrest, he was hanging his girlfriend's clothes when the police officers came and handcuffed him without saying anything. He was then brought to the police station where he was shown the two sachets and made to sign documents and be photographed.

The RTC found Deliña guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, leading to the present appeal.

Delina was charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The elements of the offense include the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, as well as the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. The State has the burden of proving these elements, as well as establishing the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. In the case of illegal drugs, the identity and integrity of the seized substance must be established with moral certainty. To ensure the handling of seized substances is proper and rights are safeguarded, law enforcement officers are required to comply with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. 9165. This rule mandates that the apprehending team immediately inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or their representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, as well as any elected public official. The inventory must be signed by all parties involved. The IRR of R.A. 9165 further emphasizes the need for strict compliance with the physical inventory and photograph requirement during seizures, stating that it should be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served or at the nearest police station or apprehending officer's office if warrantless seizures occur. Failure to comply with these requirements may cast doubt on the handling of the seized substance.

ISSUES:

1. Whether there were lapses in the buy-bust team's handling of the prohibited drug allegedly seized from the accused.

2. Whether the lapses in the chain of custody of the evidence result in the acquittal of the accused.

3. Whether or not the chain of custody of the seized items was established.

4. Whether or not the failure to present the confidential asset turned poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution's case.

5. Whether the accused is entitled to acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt.

6. Whether the accused should be immediately released from detention.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court held that there were indeed lapses in the buy-bust team's handling of the prohibited drug seized from the accused. These lapses include the failure to immediately mark the confiscated sachets and the failure to conduct the physical inventory and photograph at the place of arrest. These lapses were considered serious breaches in the standards of chain of custody.

2. The Court further ruled that these lapses result in the acquittal of the accused. The failure to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 does not automatically render the seizure and custody of the evidence void and invalid. However, the prosecution must satisfactorily prove that there are justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable explanations for the deviations from the established rules.

3. The chain of custody of the seized items was not established. The testimonies of the witnesses were insufficient to prove how the suspected shabu changed hands from one police officer to another. There was a lack of explanation as to the condition of the seized items during the transfers, how each person ensured that the items were not tampered with, and the safeguards employed to prevent tampering or substitution. The failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.

4. The failure to present the confidential asset turned poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution's case. The poseur-buyer was the only witness to the illegal sale and the one who consummated the sale. The police officers who testified were positioned about 8 to 10 meters away from the transaction and their testimonies were based on conjecture or hearsay. The absence of the poseur-buyer's testimony or that of any eyewitness weakens the prosecution's evidence. While the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer may be excusable when their testimony is merely corroborative and there is another competent eyewitness, this is not the case here. Therefore, the accused is acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.

5. The accused is entitled to acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt.

6. The accused should be immediately released from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.

PRINCIPLES:

• In drug-related cases, marking of the evidence is crucial as it serves as the starting point in the custodial link, separating the marked evidence from other similar evidence and preventing switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

• The physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be done immediately after seizure or confiscation at the place of apprehension, unless it is not practicable. The presence of the required witnesses must also be secured not only during the inventory but also at the time of the warrantless arrest.

• The failure to strictly comply with the procedures in the chain of custody may not automatically invalidate the seizure and custody of the evidence. However, the prosecution has the burden of proving that there are justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

• The chain of custody of seized items must be established to ensure their integrity and evidentiary value.

• Every person who touches the seized item must describe how and from whom they received it, what happened to it while in their possession, its condition when received, and at the time it was delivered to the next link in the chain.

• The failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

• The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation is fatal to the prosecution's case, unless their testimony is merely corroborative and there is another competent eyewitness.

• In criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

• The constitutional presumption of innocence requires that the accused be acquitted if his guilt is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• When the prosecution fails to meet the burden of proof, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

• The accused may be ordered to be immediately released from detention if he is not lawfully held for another cause.