G.R. No. 250307 , February 21, 2023.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, VS. ROBERT UY y TING, ONG CHI SENG @ JACKIE ONG or ARCHIE, CO CHING KI @ CHAI ONG, TAN TY SIAO, GO SIAK PING, JAMES GO ONG @ WILLIAM GAN, Accused, ROBERT UY y TING, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Robert Uy y Ting, a Filipino, along with five Chinese nationals, was charged with violations of Sections 5 (transportation) and 11 (possession) of Republic Act No. 9165 . The charges stemmed from a police operation targeting Ong Chi Seng (Jackie Ong). During the operation at Jackie Ong’s residence, police officers, after finding the Chinese nationals without proper documentation, were allegedly offered 10 kilograms of shabu in exchange for their freedom. The officers pretended to agree. A plan was made to pick up the drugs using a police officer’s red Mitsubishi Lancer, which was left at a McDonald’s along MacArthur Highway. Uy was later identified as the man who boarded the car, drove it to a warehouse in Valenzuela, and then drove it back to a pick-up area where he was arrested. A box containing five plastic bags of shabu was seized from the car. Hours after Uy’s arrest, police obtained a search warrant, raided the warehouse, and confiscated approximately 230 kilograms of shabu. The warehouse owner testified he leased it to co-accused James Go Ong (Gan), with Uy helping facilitate communication. Uy claimed he was merely hired as Gan’s driver and was instructed to drive the car from McDonald’s to the warehouse, where he was immediately arrested. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Uy for violations of Sections 5 and 11 and Gan for violation of Section 11, but dismissed the charges against the other Chinese nationals. The Court of Appeals affirmed Uy’s convictions, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant Robert Uy y Ting should be acquitted of the charges for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Robert Uy y Ting. The ponencia’s acquittal is concurred with based on two primary grounds. First, for the Section 11 charge (possession of the 230 kilograms of shabu from the warehouse), the prosecution failed to prove Uy had actual or constructive possession or the requisite animus possidendi. Uy was already in police custody when the warehouse was searched, and the warehouse was leased to Gan, not Uy. Second, for both the Section 5 and Section 11 charges, the police officers committed multiple violations of the chain-of-custody procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 , casting reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. For the Section 5 charge (transportation of the 10 kilograms), the marking and inventory were done without any of the three required witnesses, there was no Inventory Receipt, and the photographs were unclear. For the Section 11 charge, there was no Inventory Report, and the photographs taken did not constitute the proper inventory and photography required by law. Every other link in the chain of custody was also broken. The Court emphasized that the requirements of Section 21 are mandatory and apply regardless of the volume of drugs seized. Due to these procedural lapses and the failure to prove possession, Uy must be acquitted. The acquittal was also extended to co-accused Gan, as the reasonable doubt affected the very corpus delicti of the offenses.