G.R. No. 240230 , November 28, 2019
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Rogelio Divinagracia, Jr. y Dornila, a.k.a. “Ensol” and Rosworth Sy y Bersabal, a.k.a. “Roro”, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Two Informations were filed against accused-appellants Rogelio Divinagracia, Jr. and Rosworth Sy for violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). Divinagracia and Sy were charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs (Section 5), and Sy was separately charged for possession of drug paraphernalia (Section 12). The prosecution alleged that on April 25, 2011, based on a tip from a confidential informant, a buy-bust team was formed in Parañaque City. PO3 Edwin Plopinio acted as poseur-buyer and was given a marked Php 500 bill. The team proceeded to Doña Soledad Extension. The informant identified Divinagracia. PO3 Plopinio and the informant approached Divinagracia, who was with Sy. The informant introduced PO3 Plopinio as a buyer. Divinagracia stated his friend (Sy) had marijuana, accepted the marked money, and then obtained a plastic sachet from Sy, which he handed to PO3 Plopinio. Upon consummation of the sale, PO3 Plopinio gave a pre-arranged signal, arrested Divinagracia, and PO2 Rolly Burgos arrested Sy. The marked money was recovered from Divinagracia’s pocket, and an improvised glass pipe was recovered from Sy. An inventory was conducted at the scene with Barangay Kagawad Cho Villar as a witness. The seized items (plastic sachet marked “EP” and glass pipe marked “RB”) were forwarded to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for marijuana. The defense presented a different version. Sy claimed he was arrested by a police officer who knew him from a prior case and who demanded money. Divinagracia claimed he was mistakenly arrested as someone else (“Nognog”) while walking home. Both denied knowing each other and the drug transaction. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted both accused. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court via appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellants for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 , despite alleged irregularities in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED the accused-appellants. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items, which is crucial in proving the corpus delicti in drugs cases. The Court noted several breaches of the mandatory procedure under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . First, while an inventory was conducted with a barangay official present, there was no evidence that the required representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) were present or that their absence was justified. Second, the testimony regarding the marking of the seized items was inconsistent and unclear; PO3 Plopinio testified he marked the plastic sachet at the police station, not at the place of seizure, and the testimony on who marked the glass pipe and where it was marked was ambiguous. Third, the testimony on the transfer of custody from the arresting officer to the investigating officer and then to the crime laboratory was vague and lacked detail, creating gaps in the chain. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for these procedural lapses. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised, creating reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused-appellants.