MARIO NISPEROS y PADILLA v. PEOPLE [G.R. No. 250927, November 29, 2022 ]

 CASE DIGEST

MARIO NISPEROS y PADILLA v. PEOPLE

[G.R. No. 250927, November 29, 2022 ]

En Banc, Rosario, J.

 

CHAIN OF CUSTODY; SECTION 21, R.A. NO. 9165 AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10640; INSULATING WITNESSES — PRESENCE “AT OR NEAR” THE PLACE OF APPREHENSION; MARKING OF SEIZED DRUGS; GUIDELINES ON MARKING AND INVENTORY

 

In warrantless arrests on account of buy-bust operations, the required witnesses must be present “at or near” the place of apprehension, that is, within the vicinity, in order to comply with the statutory rule that the inventory should be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation. Since they may be present “near” the place of apprehension, they need not witness the arrest itself or the seizure or confiscation of the drugs or drug paraphernalia. They need only be readily available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory. Marking, as the first link in the chain of custody, must be done immediately upon confiscation, at the place of confiscation, and in the presence of the offender; and every deviation from the prescribed procedure must be positively acknowledged and justified by the prosecution.

 

Mario Nisperos y Padilla was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in an Information dated September 18, 2015. It alleged that on June 30, 2015, in Tuguegarao City, he sold one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.7603 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride to PO1 Michael B. Turingan, who acted as poseur-buyer, for ₱3,000.00 in buy-bust money. He pleaded not guilty. 

Acting on information from a confidential informant that a certain “Junjun” of Pallua, Tuguegarao City was selling shabu, a buy-bust team was formed in coordination with the PDEA. PO1 Turingan was introduced as the buyer. Nisperos handed him the sachet; PO1 Turingan handed over the buy-bust money, which was recovered when Nisperos was bodily searched. 

The sale transpired at about 11:30 in the morning. An inventory was conducted at the place of the transaction in the presence of Nisperos, Barangay Captain Desiderio Taguinod and Department of Justice representative Ferdinand Gangan. Barangay Captain Taguinod was already at the place of transaction, but DOJ representative Gangan arrived only at 12 noon — half an hour after the seizure — and without him the inventory could not proceed for lack of one required witness. 

Gangan testified that the item was still unmarked when it was first presented to the witnesses during the inventory. PO1 Turingan marked the sachet only then, in front of him. The specimen was turned over to the crime laboratory, examined by forensic chemist PSI Alfredo Quintero with a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, and later identified and offered in evidence. 

The Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Branch 1, convicted Nisperos and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drug had been properly preserved. Nisperos elevated the case to the Supreme Court, asserting that the required witnesses were not present at the time of his arrest.

 

 

ISSUE 1: Must the insulating witnesses actually witness the arrest and the seizure or confiscation of the drugs in a buy-bust operation?

ANSWER: NO. Nisperos relied on People v. Supat, where the Court said that “it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug,” and on People v. Tomawis, which held that because the inventory must be made “immediately after seizure and confiscation,” the witnesses should already be present at the time of apprehension — a requirement easily complied with, since a buy-bust operation is a planned activity. 

The Court clarified the rule. It acknowledged that the presence of the mandatory witnesses at the time of apprehension may pose a serious risk to their lives and to the buy-bust operation itself. Since they may be present “near” and not necessarily “at” the place of apprehension, the Court stressed that they are not required to witness the arrest and the seizure or confiscation of the drugs or drug paraphernalia. 

What is required of them is narrower and more practical: they need only be readily available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory.

 

 

ISSUE 2: Must the insulating witnesses nevertheless be present at or near the place of apprehension, within the vicinity, so as to be readily available for the immediately ensuing inventory?

ANSWER: YES. This is the operative half of the rule. The mandatory witnesses must be present at or near the place of apprehension in order for the inventory to be immediately conducted. They are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs “immediately after seizure and confiscation.” 

The relaxation therefore runs only to what they must see, not to where they must be. A witness who is in the vicinity but did not observe the transaction complies with the rule; a witness who has to be fetched from elsewhere after the arrest does not.

 

 

ISSUE 3: Was the half-hour delay in the inventory, caused by the late arrival of the DOJ representative, a justifiable ground for non-compliance with the chain of custody rule?

ANSWER: NO. The sale transpired at 11:30 in the morning, but the inventory took place half an hour later because DOJ representative Gangan arrived only at 12 noon. Without him, the inventory could not be conducted for lack of one required witness. 

The Court noted that the inventory was done at the place of seizure and did not need to be performed at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. The buy-bust team should therefore have been able to conduct it immediately after the seizure, were it not for the tardy arrival of the DOJ representative. 

“Certainly, his late arrival is not a justifiable ground for the delay.” The buy-bust team only had itself to blame for not ensuring that all required witnesses were readily available so that the inventory could be conducted at once. The team thus unjustifiably deviated from the chain of custody rule when only one of the mandatory witnesses was readily available at the place of transaction.

 

 

ISSUE 4: Must the marking of seized dangerous drugs be done immediately upon confiscation, at the place of confiscation, and in the presence of the offender?

ANSWER: YES. Marking is the first stage in the chain of custody. It serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, “planting,” or contamination of evidence. 

While the rule on marking is not found in the statute, Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 requires that the seized items be properly marked for identification, and the PDEA Guidelines on the IRR of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 require the apprehending or seizing officer to mark the seized items immediately upon seizure and confiscation. Administrative rules and regulations, when promulgated pursuant to authority conferred by law, have the force and effect of law and partake of the nature of a statute. 

In People v. Sanchez, the Court emphasised that consistency with the chain of custody rule requires that the marking of seized items be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon confiscation. This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence.

 

 

ISSUE 5: Did the belated marking of the seized sachet — done only during the inventory — compromise the corpus delicti and warrant acquittal?

ANSWER: YES. It was undisputed that the poseur-buyer failed to mark the seized item immediately upon confiscating it. The DOJ representative himself testified that the item was still unmarked when first presented to the witnesses during the inventory; it was marked only then. No justifiable ground was proffered to excuse the belated marking. 

The Court's conclusion was categorical: “Since the first link of the chain was not even established, We find it unnecessary to discuss the other links of the chain. Verily, there was no chain to even speak of.” 

With the belated marking and the delayed conduct of the inventory, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were seriously compromised, and the acquittal of the petitioner was warranted.

 

 

ISSUE 6: In case of any deviation from the prescribed procedure on marking and inventory, must the prosecution positively acknowledge the deviation and prove both a justifiable ground and the preservation of the integrity of the seized items?

ANSWER: YES. To guide the bench, the bar and the public, particularly law enforcement officers, the Court adopted the following guidelines: 

1. The marking of the seized dangerous drugs must be done: (a) immediately upon confiscation; (b) at the place of confiscation; and (c) in the presence of the offender, unless the offender eluded the arrest. 

2. The conduct of inventory and taking of photographs must be done: (a) immediately after seizure and confiscation; (b) in the presence of the accused, or the person from whom the items were seized, or his or her representative or counsel; and (c) also in the presence of the insulating witnesses — if the seizure occurred from July 4, 2002 until August 6, 2014 (under R.A. No. 9165), three (3) witnesses, namely an elected public official, a Department of Justice representative and a media representative; if the seizure occurred from August 7, 2014 onward (under R.A. No. 10640), two (2) witnesses, namely an elected public official and a National Prosecution Service representative or a media representative. 

3. In case of any deviation from the foregoing, the prosecution must positively acknowledge the same and prove (1) justifiable ground or grounds for non-compliance and (2) the proper preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

 

DISPOSITION. The appeal was GRANTED. The Decision dated August 5, 2019 and the Resolution dated November 7, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11472 were REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Mario Nisperos y Padilla was ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt and ordered immediately released from detention unless lawfully held for another cause. Copies of the Decision were ordered furnished to the Secretary of Justice, the Philippine National Police, the Dangerous Drugs Board and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information. The Decision was rendered by the Court En Banc.





CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT