G.R. No. 198115; February 22, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE ALEX SECRETO y VILLANUEVA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jose Alex Secreto was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The prosecution alleged that on July 9, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted where PO2 Lagmay, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased a sachet of shabu from Secreto for ₱100. Upon arrest, another sachet was allegedly recovered from Secreto’s pocket. The seized items were marked at the police station and later confirmed by a forensic chemist to be shabu. Secreto denied the charges, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested while drinking with a friend, that nothing illegal was found on him, and that the police demanded ₱20,000 for his release.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), considering the alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which is crucial to proving the identity and integrity of the seized drugs—the corpus delicti of the offenses. The Court noted a gross disregard of the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The required physical inventory and photograph of the seized items were not conducted in the presence of the accused or any representative from the media, the Department of Justice, or an elected public official. The arresting officers offered no justifiable reason for this non-compliance. Furthermore, the prosecution did not adequately account for the custody of the drugs from the time of seizure at the scene until their presentation in court. PO2 Lagmay testified that he merely handed the items to the investigator at the station, without detailing who had interim custody or how the integrity was preserved. This failure to follow mandated procedures, without valid explanation, created serious doubt as to whether the shabu presented in court was the same substance allegedly seized from the accused. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence when there is a clear breach of procedure that compromises the evidence’s integrity. Consequently, the identity of the corpus delicti was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.