G.R. No. 181831, March 29, 2010
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Rodnie Almorfe y Sedente and Ryan Almorfe y Vallester, Appellants.

FACTS

Appellants Rodnie Almorfe and Ryan Almorfe were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Pasig for violation of Section 5 (illegal sale) of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act). Rodnie was additionally convicted for violation of Section 11 (illegal possession) of the same law. The prosecution’s version states that on November 27, 2003, a police team conducted a buy-bust operation in Pasig City based on an informant’s tip. PO1 Janet Sabo acted as the poseur-buyer. Rodnie, after receiving marked money, obtained a sachet of shabu from Ryan and handed it to Janet. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the team arrested the appellants. Janet seized the marked money and two additional sachets from a black plastic container in Rodnie’s possession. The contents of all three sachets tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. During the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the existence of the sachets and the forensic chemist’s report. The appellants denied the charges, claiming they were framed, and alleged that police officers entered Rodnie’s house, frisked them, took money, and arrested them without finding any drugs. Their neighbor corroborated this version. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted the appellants. In the present appeal, the appellants assign as error the prosecution’s failure to prove that the shabu submitted for examination was the same one allegedly taken from them, highlighting the police’s non-compliance with the inventory requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs due to non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, thereby failing to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, which is essential to prove the corpus delicti of the offenses. While the non-compliance with the specific inventory and photograph requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not automatically invalidate the seizure if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity of the evidence is preserved, the prosecution in this case failed to provide any explanation for the procedural lapses. More critically, the prosecution did not present evidence to show the movement and custody of the seized drugs from the time of confiscation by PO1 Janet Sabo to their receipt by the forensic chemist and presentation in court. Janet Sabo did not identify the investigator to whom she turned over the seized items, and there was no showing of who delivered them to the forensic chemist or how they were stored and handled in between. This break in the chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from the appellants. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were compromised, warranting acquittal.