People vs William Rodriguez

July 1, 2019 GR233535

Facts: On July 27, 2013 at around 1:15 a.m., Manila Police District, District
Anti-Illegal Drugs (DAID) conducted a buy-bust operation against WILLIAM
RODRIGUEZ and a certain alias DANG in their pension house in M. G. Del Pilar
Street. Using the marked money of P500.00, the poseur buyer, PO3 MARTINEZ,
was able to purchased one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
Upon receiving the sachet, PO3 Martinez gave the pre-arranged signal to the buy-
bust team who rushed in and arrested WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ. But because of
the commotion, Dang was able to escape. PO3 Martinez then recovered the buy-
bust money and five unsealed plastic sachets on top of the table. Barangay
Tanods Sonny Boy Rodriguez and Joseph Caeg were called to the scene to sign
the inventory because the crew members of Imbestigador refused to sign. The
laboratory examination conducted on the seized items yielded positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride.

WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ denied the accusations and assailed that the buy-bust is
fabricated and the seized items were planted.

RTC finds WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ guilty of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 but acquitted him from the crime of
illegal possession.

The CA affirmed the RTC's Decision. The CA found that, contrary to the claim of
accused, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been
preserved in an unbroken chain of custody. The absence of the representative
from the DOJ was not fatal as there was no showing that there was a break in
the chain of custody of the seized items.

Issue: Whether or not the police officers failed to preserve the integrity of the
alleged seized items because of the absence of the DOJ representative in the
conduct of Inventory and the taking of the photograph.

Held: Yes. Under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the physical inventory and
taking of photographs of the seized items must be witnessed by three insulating
witnesses (i.e. an elected public official, a representative from the media, and a
representative from the DOJ). They must also sign the inventory and be given
copies of the same. In case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses
was not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove not only the reasons
for their absence, but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their
attendance.

Here, the physical inventory and the taking of photographs of the seized items
were allegedly witnessed by the crew members of Imbestigador and Barangay
Tanods Rodriguez and Caeg. Their presence cannot be considered substantial
compliance. Barangay tanods are not elected public officials, hence, their
presence is immaterial. Also, no DOJ representative was present at that time.
Thus, strictly speaking, the rule requiring the insulating witnesses to be present
during the physical inventory and the taking of the photographs and to sign the
inventory sheet was not complied with and the prosecution failed to justify that
earnest efforts were exerted to secure their presence.

The Court is constrained to acquit the accused-appellant based on reasonable

doubt.