GR 234648; (March, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 234648 . March 27, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ELIZALDE JAGDON Y BANAAG A.K.A. “ZALDY,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
The prosecution’s evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellant Elizalde Jagdon based on a tip. PO2 Ian Piano acted as poseur-buyer and, accompanied by a confidential informant, met Jagdon inside a junk shop. PO2 Piano handed marked money amounting to P220.00 to Jagdon in exchange for twelve sticks of suspected marijuana. Upon consummation of the sale, PO2 Piano arrested Jagdon and recovered the marked money. A search incidental to arrest yielded an additional forty-five sticks of marijuana from a small blue bag in Jagdon’s possession. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the place of arrest in the presence of two barangay officials—the barangay secretary and a Purok President. Forensic examination confirmed the substances were marijuana. Jagdon denied the charges, claiming he was framed and that police officers forcibly entered his home.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs with moral certainty, thereby proving Jagdon’s guilt for illegal sale and possession beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Jagdon. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity of the corpus delicti must be established with an unbroken chain of custody. Compliance with the witness requirement under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is crucial to this end. The law mandates that the inventory and photographing of seized drugs be conducted immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
The Court found that the buy-bust team only secured the presence of two barangay officials. There was no representative from the media or the Department of Justice, and the prosecution failed to offer any justifiable reason for this deviation. The police officers did not even attempt to contact these required witnesses. The presence of these insulating witnesses is not a mere procedural formality but a critical safeguard to protect against evidence planting and to ensure the integrity of the seizure from its very inception. Their absence, without any explanation, created reasonable doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones allegedly seized from Jagdon. Consequently, the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti were compromised, warranting acquittal. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence when the chain of custody rule is breached.