G.R. No. 214490 , January 13, 2016.
Howard Lescano y Carreon @ “Tisoy”, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

On July 8, 2008, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the CAIDSOT of Olongapo City at the corner of Tulio and Tabacuhan Streets based on a tip. PO3 Hortencio Javier acted as the poseur-buyer. He was introduced to petitioner Howard Lescano by an informant. PO3 Javier handed a marked P100.00 bill to Lescano, who in turn gave him a medium-sized plastic sachet allegedly containing marijuana. PO3 Javier then gave the pre-arranged signal, and Lescano was apprehended. The buy-bust money was recovered from him. PO3 Javier marked the seized sachet with his initials “HJ” at the scene and later turned it over to the investigator. At the CAIDSOT office, an inventory and photographing of the evidence were allegedly conducted. The sachet, weighing 1.4 grams, tested positive for marijuana. Lescano was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The Regional Trial Court convicted Lescano, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Lescano appealed, denying the sale and claiming he was merely frisked and nothing was found on him.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Howard Lescano’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) was established, subsumed in which is the question of whether the prosecution was able to establish compliance with the requisites of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 regarding the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED the decisions of the lower courts and ACQUITTED Howard Lescano. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, creating reasonable doubt as to their integrity and identity as the corpus delicti of the crime. The Court emphasized that the procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165 is mandatory. The prosecution did not provide justifiable grounds for the absence of the required witnesses (a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official) during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized item. The testimony merely stated an inventory was “allegedly conducted” and photographs were “taken,” without detailing who was present. The marking of the item, while done at the scene by the poseur-buyer, was insufficient to compensate for the lapse in the subsequent mandatory inventory and witnessing steps. Given the miniscule amount (1.4 grams) of marijuana involved, the likelihood of tampering, alteration, or substitution is higher, making strict compliance with the chain of custody rule imperative. The unjustified non-compliance constituted a fatal flaw in the prosecution’s evidence, warranting acquittal.