G.R. No. 228255, June 10, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. MARY JANE CADIENTE Y QUINDO @ JANE, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Mary Jane Cadiente was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution’s evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted against her on July 11, 2014, in Makati City. PO2 Rexell Gabelo acted as poseur-buyer and purchased a sachet of shabu from Cadiente for PHP 500. Upon arrest, another sachet was allegedly recovered from her. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at a barangay hall in the presence of the barangay captain. However, the required witnesses under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165—a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a media representative—were not present during the inventory.
The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming Cadiente was a victim of a frame-up. She testified that armed men forcibly entered her home, detained her, and demanded money for her release, subsequently filing fabricated charges when the payment was not delivered. The Regional Trial Court convicted her for illegal sale but acquitted her for illegal possession due to the arresting officer’s failure to identify the second sachet during cross-examination. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for illegal sale.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug, given the arresting officers’ non-compliance with the witness requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Cadiente. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal drug sale, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is required, mandating the physical inventory and photographing of seized items to be conducted immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or her representative, an elected public official, a DOJ representative, and a media representative. The presence of these insulating witnesses is crucial to prevent planting, switching, or contamination of evidence.
Here, the prosecution admitted that only a barangay captain was present during the inventory. There was a complete absence of the required DOJ and media representatives. Critically, the prosecution failed to offer any justifiable reason for this lapse or to demonstrate that the apprehending officers exerted earnest efforts to secure their presence. The mere presence of one elected official is insufficient. The unjustified non-compliance constitutes a fatal procedural gap that breaks the chain of custody. Consequently, the integrity of the seized drug was compromised, creating reasonable doubt as to Cadiente’s guilt. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence when the procedure safeguarding the evidence’s integrity was not observed.