G.R. No. 192785 , February 4, 2015.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOMER BUTIAL, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed against Jomer Butial for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for allegedly selling two plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) to a poseur-buyer on October 21, 2002, in Tabaco City. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of police officers and an asset, is that a buy-bust operation was conducted. The asset, Gilbert Borlagdan, acted as poseur-buyer and purchased the drugs from Butial using marked money. After the transaction, Borlagdan handed the two sachets to PO2 Roy Martirez. The police officers arrested Butial, who allegedly threw a sachet on the ground, which SPO4 Rosalino Bonavente recovered. Butial’s backpack was also retrieved, and more sachets were found inside. Five sachets were later submitted to the crime laboratory, all testing positive for shabu. The defense’s version, presented by Butial and two witnesses, claimed the arrest was illegal and that evidence was planted. The Regional Trial Court convicted Butial, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Butial appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning his warrantless arrest, the elements of the offense, and the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti (the illegal drugs) by complying with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the appeal and ACQUITTED Jomer Butial. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, thereby failing to prove the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the apprehending officers did not immediately mark the two plastic sachets that were the subject of the sale. PO2 Martirez admitted he did not mark them and could not definitively state who did. SPO4 Bonavente’s testimony on marking pertained to other sachets he recovered, not the ones sold. There was also a failure to comply with the witness requirements under Section 21, as the inventory and photographing of the seized items were not done in the presence of the accused or his representative, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this non-compliance. These gaps and irregularities in the chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to whether the illegal drugs presented in court were the same ones allegedly seized from Butial. Consequently, his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.