GR 228132; (March, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 228132 , March 11, 2020
MICHAEL TAÑAMOR Y ACIBO, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
An Information was filed charging petitioner Michael Tañamor and Junfil Piñero (at-large) with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on February 25, 2014, in Dumaguete City, a buy-bust operation was conducted where PO2 Buenaflor, as poseur-buyer, purchased three plastic sachets of shabu from Piñero, who instructed petitioner to receive the marked money. Upon consummation, Piñero escaped, but petitioner was arrested and the marked money was recovered from him. The seized items were marked, inventoried at the police station in the presence of petitioner, a barangay kagawad, a DOJ representative, and a media practitioner, and subsequently examined, testing positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Petitioner denied the charges, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested at an eatery in the morning, detained for hours, and later brought to the police station where the evidence was fabricated. The RTC convicted petitioner, a decision affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the CA Decision, and ACQUITTED petitioner. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, which is essential to prove the corpus delicti. Specifically, there was a deviation from the witness requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 , as amended. The law requires the inventory and photographing to be conducted immediately after seizure 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 presented a media representative and a barangay kagawad, but the DOJ representative, Anthony Chilius Benlot, was not presented to testify on the inventory proceedings. His mere signature on the inventory form, without testimony, was insufficient to prove compliance. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground for this absence. This gap in the chain of custody, coupled with the failure to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs with moral certainty, warranted acquittal based on reasonable doubt.