G.R. No. 224587, July 28, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Sammy Yusop y Muhammad, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On November 20, 2011, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) received information that a large quantity of shabu would be transported via LBC from Las Piñas to Cagayan de Oro, consigned to accused-appellant Sammy Yusop. A surveillance was set up at the LBC branch. On November 21, 2011, around 8:30 p.m., Yusop arrived and claimed the package (a Pensonic television). Upon apprehension, the package was opened, and two plastic bags containing crystalline substance were found inside the television. The items were marked, photographed, and later confirmed by forensic tests to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing a total of 1,481.46 grams. Yusop denied knowledge, claiming he was merely claiming the package for another person for a fee. The Regional Trial Court convicted Yusop for illegal transport of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the warrantless arrest of Yusop was valid and whether the prosecution established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly with regard to compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that the warrantless arrest was valid under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as the PDEA agents had probable cause based on personal knowledge from a verified tip and surveillance that an offense (illegal transport) had just been committed. However, the Court ACQUITTED Yusop due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the witness requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The law requires the presence of three witnesses during the physical inventory and photographing of seized items: (1) a representative from the media, (2) a representative from the Department of Justice, and (3) an elected public official. The prosecution only presented the presence of a city councilor and a media representative, but failed to secure a representative from the DOJ. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this non-compliance. This breach compromised the integrity of the corpus delicti and created reasonable doubt as to the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. Consequently, the appeal was granted, the assailed CA decision was reversed, and Yusop was ordered released.