G.R. No. 179749 March 1, 2017
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Eddie Barte y Mendoza, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Eddie Barte y Mendoza, was convicted for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for selling a sachet of shabu worth ₱100.00 to PO2 Rico Cabatingan, who acted as a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation in Mandaue City on August 10, 2002. The prosecution presented PO2 Cabatingan, who testified on the details of the operation, including the pre-arranged signal, the arrest, and the marking of the seized sachet with “EBM.” The substance was later confirmed by the crime laboratory to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
In his defense, Barte claimed he was merely sitting near a chapel when police officers suddenly arrested him without cause, searched him at the station, and only informed him of the charges the following day. The Regional Trial Court convicted Barte, giving full credence to the police testimony despite acknowledging the prosecution’s failure to present evidence of compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, such as physical inventory and photographing in the presence of required witnesses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, considering the non-compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED Eddie Barte y Mendoza. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody. Section 21 of RA 9165 mandates specific procedural safeguards, including immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
The prosecution failed to offer any justification for its non-compliance with these mandatory procedures. The police did not conduct the inventory or photograph the seized item in the presence of the required witnesses. The State did not provide a credible explanation for this lapse, nor did it demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were preserved. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The unjustified breaches in the chain of custody procedure created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal.