GR 230964; (March, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 230964 , March 02, 2022
CICL XXX, CICL YYY, JONATHAN SOLINA Y SOLINA ALIAS “JUN-JUN,” AND JED BARBA Y APOLONIO ALIAS “JED,” PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
On March 8, 2006, police officers, acting on information, conducted an anti-criminality operation. They saw petitioners and accused Jonathan Solina inside a room with two plastic sachets of suspected marijuana and an improvised glass tube pipe. The officers arrested them, confiscated the items, and brought them to the police station. At the station, the investigating officer, PO2 Holanda, marked the seized items in the presence of the accused. The items were later submitted to the crime laboratory, which confirmed the substance was marijuana. Petitioners were charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution presented the testimonies of the arresting officers and the forensic chemist. The defense claimed they were merely waiting for a friend when apprehended, that the police did not conduct an inventory or take photographs of the seized items at the place of arrest, and that they were shown the items only later at a basketball court. The Regional Trial Court found them guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the fine for the paraphernalia charge. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioners’ conviction despite alleged irregularities in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia, particularly the failure to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the items immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or required witnesses as mandated by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 .
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the December 14, 2016 Decision and April 3, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Petitioners CICL XXX, CICL YYY, Jonathan Solina y Solina, and Jed Barba y Apolonio were ACQUITTED of violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 .
The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and to prove the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt. The arresting officers did not conduct the required physical inventory and photograph of the seized items immediately after seizure at the place of arrest. The marking was done only at the police station by the investigating officer who was not present during the arrest. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for these lapses. The Court emphasized that while the marking of evidence may be done at the police station, the law requires the inventory and photography to be conducted immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or specific witnesses. The police officers’ failure to comply with these procedural safeguards, without any explanation, compromised the integrity of the evidence. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, petitioners’ acquittal was ordered.