G.R. No. 239635 , July 22, 2019.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JOSE BENNY VILLOJAN, JR. Y BESMONTE ALIAS “JAY-AR,” Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jose Benny Villojan, Jr. was charged with violations of Sections 5 (sale) and 11 (possession), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on April 25, 2012, in San Jose, Antique. The prosecution’s version stated that a buy-bust team was formed, with PO2 Aubrey Baldevia as the poseur-buyer. Appellant sold eight tea bags of marijuana to PO2 Baldevia for PHP 800.00. Upon arrest, a body search yielded one additional tea bag of marijuana and a PHP 50.00 bill from appellant. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed in the alleged presence of a provincial prosecutor, media representatives, and a barangay kagawad. The items were then submitted to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for marijuana. Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was unlawfully arrested, that the drugs were planted, and that no witnesses were present during the inventory. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant, imposing life imprisonment and a fine for illegal sale, and an indeterminate penalty for illegal possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction despite alleged breaches in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED the accused-appellant. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which is crucial in proving the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. Specifically, the prosecution did not provide justifiable grounds for the absence of the required witnesses during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items as mandated by Section 21 of RA 9165. The law requires the presence of an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the media during these procedures. The records showed that the inventory was witnessed by a Provincial Prosecutor (DOJ representative), media representatives, and a Barangay Kagawad. However, the prosecution failed to demonstrate that earnest efforts were made to secure the presence of an elected public official, as the Barangay Kagawad is not considered one. The prosecution offered no explanation for this absence. This lapse, coupled with other procedural gaps such as the lack of testimony on who marked the items and how they were handled between the arresting officers and the forensic chemist, created reasonable doubt on the integrity of the evidence. Consequently, appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.