G.R. No. 226152 . March 13, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LUISITO CARTINA Y GARCIA, ALLAN JEPEZ Y TUSCANO AND NELSON RAMOS, JR. Y CARTINA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

Appellants were apprehended during a buy-bust operation on October 30, 2012, in Makati City. Based on a tip, a MADAC team conducted an entrapment where the poseur-buyer purchased a sachet of shabu from appellant Cartina. Upon arrest, two more sachets were found on Cartina. His companions, appellants Jepez and Ramos Jr., attempted to flee but were subdued, and one sachet each was recovered from them. The items were marked at the barangay hall in the presence of a barangay kagawad and photographed. Laboratory examination confirmed the sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court convicted all appellants for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 , a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals.
The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming they were arbitrarily arrested while bathing near a water pump. They alleged that armed operatives, after inquiring about another person, mauled them, forced them into a van, and later presented them with drugs they had not possessed. They maintained the evidence was planted and that the procedural requirements of the law were not complied with during the seizure and custody of the alleged drugs.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs, constituting the corpus delicti, amidst alleged procedural lapses in the chain of custody under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the convictions and ACQUITTED all appellants. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the State must prove an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the identity and integrity of the seized items from seizure to presentation in court. The law mandates the conduct of a physical inventory and photographing of the seized items immediately after seizure, which must be done in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
Here, the prosecution’s own witness admitted that the required inventory was not conducted in the presence of a representative from the media or the Department of Justice. The prosecution failed to offer any justifiable ground for this non-compliance. The Court ruled that while non-compliance may be excused if justifiable grounds are presented and the integrity of the evidence is preserved, the police officers’ utter disregard of the procedural safeguards without explanation created serious uncertainty about the identity of the drugs presented as evidence. This failure to adhere to the strict custodial requirements, without valid reason, compromised the integrity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, warranting their acquittal.