GR 239331; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 239331 , July 10, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Edson Barbac Retada, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Edson Barbac Retada was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution’s version states that on April 7, 2012, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Ginatilan, Cebu, where PO2 Catubig, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from Retada using marked money. Upon arrest and a body search at the police station, another plastic sachet was recovered from him. The defense claimed frame-up, alleging Retada was attending a procession with his children when police invited him to the station, where they later presented drugs and money allegedly from him. The Regional Trial Court convicted Retada, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals with a penalty modification. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court via appeal.
ISSUE
Whether Retada’s guilt for violation of Sections 5 and 11(3) of RA 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the appeal and ACQUITTED Retada. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody due to the police officers’ unjustified non-compliance with the procedural safeguards under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Specifically, the apprehending team did not conduct the physical inventory and photography of the seized items immediately at the place of arrest but only at the police station, offering a flimsy excuse about the presence of several persons. Furthermore, during the inventory at the station, only two elected public officials (councilors) were present; the mandatory witnesses from the media and the Department of Justice were absent. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground for this non-compliance, nor did it prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were compromised, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.