G.R. No. 258328 . November 29, 2022
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE VASTINE Y GIBSON @ JIMMY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jose Vastine y Gibson was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Use of Dangerous Drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on August 1, 2011, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Taguig City where PO3 Ernesto Mabanglo, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased two bricks of cocaine from Vastine in exchange for marked money. Vastine and his co-accused, Albert Joaquin Ong, were subsequently arrested. During the post-arrest urine tests, Vastine tested positive for THC-metabolites (marijuana). The Regional Trial Court convicted Vastine, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
On appeal before the Supreme Court, Vastine argued that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. He specifically highlighted the absence of required witnesses—a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and an elected public official—during the inventory and photographing of the evidence at the police station, as mandated by Section 21 of RA 9165. The defense contended this lapse compromised the integrity of the evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violations of RA 9165, notwithstanding the absence of the required witnesses during the inventory of the seized drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved despite the procedural deviation. The Court acknowledged that the buy-bust team failed to secure the presence of a DOJ representative and an elected official during the inventory. However, it emphasized that strict compliance with Section 21’s witness requirement is not always mandatory. The law allows for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, and the prosecution must convincingly explain the lapse.
In this case, the Court found the police officers’ explanation sufficient and reasonable. They testified that earnest efforts were made to contact the necessary witnesses, but they were unavailable at the time. The officers proceeded with the inventory in the presence of a media representative and other police personnel. The Court held that the prosecution adequately established the justifiable ground for the deviation, as the officers’ actions constituted a genuine attempt to comply with the law under the prevailing circumstances. Crucially, the Court found that the chain of custody remained unbroken. The evidence showed continuous accountability from the seizure, marking, laboratory examination, and presentation in court. The identity, integrity, and weight of the cocaine were never placed in doubt. Minor procedural lapses, when explained, do not automatically invalidate an otherwise lawful seizure or warrant acquittal, especially when the core requirement of preserving the evidence’s integrity is satisfied. Thus, the guilt of the accused-appellant for both illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.