G.R. No. 236596 . January 29, 2020.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MUSTAFA SALI y ALAVVADDIN a.k.a. “TAPANG/PANG,” Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Mustafa Sali was charged with violations of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The prosecution alleged that on June 21, 2010, in Zamboanga City, Sali sold one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.0241 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer, PDEA IO1 Michael C. Lanza, for P200.00. Upon arrest, another sachet containing 0.0155 gram of shabu was found in his possession. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Sali, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine for illegal sale, and an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years plus a P300,000 fine for illegal possession. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. Sali appealed, arguing lapses in the chain of custody and non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs with moral certainty, given alleged lapses in the chain of custody and non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Mustafa Sali based on reasonable doubt.
The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the identity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. Compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is crucial to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items. The procedure requires the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
The Court found that the buy-bust team failed to strictly comply with Section 21. The inventory was conducted only at the police station without the presence of the required witnesses (media, DOJ, or elected official). The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this non-compliance. Given the minuscule quantities of seized drugs (0.0241 gram and 0.0155 gram), which are highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration, strict adherence to the chain of custody procedure is imperative. The lapses compromised the integrity of the evidence, creating reasonable doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from Sali. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.