G.R. No. 240224 . February 23, 2022.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILLRUSS ORTEGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

On February 20, 2014, based on information from an asset, a buy-bust team was formed in Laoag City with PO2 Diego as poseur-buyer. The team proceeded to Barangay 19, Basa Street corner Rizal Street. The asset introduced PO2 Diego to accused-appellant Willruss Ortega as a buyer. Ortega gave PO2 Diego a plastic sachet of suspected shabu, and in exchange, PO2 Diego handed over a marked P1,000 bill. Upon the pre-arranged signal, back-up operatives arrested Ortega. A body search yielded a leather coin purse containing six more plastic sachets of suspected shabu. The team, with onlookers gathering, proceeded to the police station where the seized items were photographed, marked, and inventoried in the presence of Ortega and Barangay Captain Andres. The items were then submitted to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Ortega was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . Ortega denied the charges, claiming he was on his way to bring money to his partner at a pharmacy when he was forcibly taken by men in civilian clothes. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellant Willruss Ortega is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 (Illegal Sale) and Section 11 (Illegal Possession) of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 .

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and acquitted accused-appellant Willruss Ortega. The prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, which is crucial to establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The buy-bust team committed unjustified deviations from the mandatory procedures under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The inventory and photography of the seized items were conducted not at the place of arrest but at the police station, without any explanation for this transfer given the absence of any threatening circumstances that prevented immediate compliance at the scene. Furthermore, while the inventory was witnessed by a barangay captain, there was no showing that the required witnesses from the media and the Department of Justice were present or that the police exerted earnest efforts to secure their attendance. These lapses, unexplained by justifiable grounds, compromised the integrity of the evidence and created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the drugs presented in court. Consequently, Ortega’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.