Case Digest: Mario Nisperos y Padilla v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 250927, November 29, 2022 Supreme Court, En Banc Ponente: Justice Ricardo R. Rosario

 

FACTS

Mario Nisperos y Padilla was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), as amended by Republic Act No. 10640. The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted by police officers in Tuguegarao City on June 30, 2015, during which Nisperos sold one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. He was immediately arrested, and the sachet allegedly sold, together with the marked money, was recovered.

After the arrest, the police conducted an inventory and photographed the seized item. The inventory, however, was conducted approximately thirty (30) minutes after the alleged sale. Although a barangay official was present, the required representative from the National Prosecution Service (formerly the DOJ) and the elected public official were not present at or near the place of apprehension when the inventory was undertaken. The prosecution claimed that the police substantially complied with the chain of custody requirements.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Nisperos for violating Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the integrity of the seized drug had been sufficiently preserved despite the procedural lapses. Nisperos then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drug.

ISSUE

Whether or not the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drug as required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640.

Whether or not the absence of the required insulating witnesses during the inventory of the seized drug constituted a substantial violation of the statutory requirements that rendered the evidence inadmissible or unreliable.

Whether or not Nisperos was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite the police officers' failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule.

HELD

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and ACQUITTED Mario Nisperos on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove strict compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640. The law requires that immediately after seizure and confiscation, the seized drugs must be inventoried and photographed in the presence of the required insulating witnesses to preserve the identity and integrity of the evidence. The Court explained that in warrantless buy-bust operations, these witnesses need not witness the actual arrest or seizure but must be present "at or near" the place of apprehension and readily available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory.

The Court found that the inventory was conducted about thirty minutes after the arrest and that not all the mandatory witnesses were present at or near the place where the apprehension occurred. The prosecution likewise failed to provide a justifiable explanation for the absence of the required witnesses or to show earnest efforts to secure their attendance. These unexplained deviations from the statutory procedure created serious gaps in the chain of custody and cast doubt on whether the item presented in court was the very same substance allegedly seized from the accused.

The Court emphasized that while R.A. No. 10640 relaxed certain requirements under the original Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, it did not dispense with the need to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The saving clause applies only when the prosecution satisfactorily explains the reasons for non-compliance and proves that the integrity of the evidence remained intact. Since these requirements were not met, the constitutional presumption of innocence prevailed. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts, acquitted Nisperos of the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and ordered his immediate release unless he was being lawfully detained for another cause.