G.R. No. 251894 , March 02, 2022
JOHNNY PAGAL Y LAVARIAS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Johnny Pagal y Lavarias was charged with violations of Sections 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and 12 (Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia) of Republic Act No. 9165 . The charges stemmed from a search conducted on October 17, 2016, at his residence in Lingayen, Pangasinan, pursuant to a valid Search Warrant. During the search, police officers found four plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance (shabu) on top of a television in the living room and various drug paraphernalia in his nephew’s room. The items were marked and inventoried in the presence of Pagal, a Barangay Kagawad, and a media representative. The seized drugs tested positive for shabu. Pagal denied ownership of the seized items, claiming frame-up. The Regional Trial Court convicted him only for illegal possession of dangerous drugs but acquitted him for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, ruling the search of the nephew’s room invalid for non-compliance with the two-witness rule under Rule 126, Section 8 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Pagal elevated the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Johnny Pagal’s conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the Petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and ACQUITTED Johnny Pagal y Lavarias. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, thereby failing to prove the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court held that in prosecutions for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty. The chain of custody rule, under Section 21 of RA 9165, is crucial in this regard. The procedure requires the 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 must account for each link in the chain: (1) seizure and marking; (2) turnover to the investigating officer; (3) turnover to the forensic laboratory; and (4) turnover to the court.
Here, the prosecution failed to justify non-compliance with the witness requirement. While the inventory was conducted in the presence of a barangay official and a media representative, the required representative from the Department of Justice was absent. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this absence, merely stating that only the media representative arrived. This constitutes a breach of the mandatory procedure. Furthermore, the chain of custody was broken. The testimony of the forensic chemist, PCI Myrna Malojo Todeño, revealed that she received the evidence from an “evidence custodian,” not directly from the arresting officer. The prosecution did not present this custodian to testify on the crucial links of safekeeping and transfer from the police station to the crime laboratory. This gap rendered the integrity and identity of the seized drugs questionable. Given these procedural lapses, which were not excused by any justifiable ground, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties did not apply. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove Pagal’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting his acquittal.