People vs.

Edgardo Royol
G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019
Criminal Law
J. Leonen

FACTS:
During a buy-bust operation, Edgardo A. Royol was caught for having allegedly sold
marijuana. Royol was brought to the police station where the brick of marijuana was
supposedly marked. He was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. He was convicted by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) upon appeal.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the mere marking of the marijuana, to justify conviction, sufficiently
complies with the requirement under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, on the custody and
disposition of seized dangerous drugs.
(2) Whether or not presumption of regularity, on the part of the police officers, justifies
the conviction.

RULING:
(1) No. The Supreme Court ruled that the mere marking of seized items, instead of a
proper physical inventory and photographing done in the presence of the persons
specified under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, will not justify a conviction.
Section 21, R.A. 9165, as regards the items seized and subjected to marking, requires
that there must be physical inventory and photographing which must be "immediately
after seizure and confiscation." Moreover, at least three (3) persons must be present
during the physical inventory and photographing namely: (1) the accused or the
person/s from whom the items were seized, or a representative, or counsel; (2) an
elected public official; and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or a
representative of the media.
In the case at bar, other than the markings made by the police, no physical inventory
was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken. There was no presence
of even just one (1) of the persons required by Section 21 to be present during the
inventory and photographing.
Noncompliance with the requirements under Section 21 tarnishes the credibility of the
corpus delicti. It casts doubt on the very claim that an offense against the law was
committed. In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction
cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug.
(2) No, because according to the Supreme Court, presumption of regularity applies only
when officers have shown compliance with the "standard conduct of official duty
required by law." The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the
law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where
the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise.