G.R. No. 239000 , November 05, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome Emar Sanchez y Edera alias “Chin,” Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

This case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by PDEA operatives against accused-appellant Jerome Emar Sanchez on August 9, 2013. The prosecution alleged that the team successfully purchased two sachets of shabu from Sanchez. Due to a crowd forming at the scene, the team proceeded to their headquarters where the seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Jose Ruiz, Jr. Forensic examination confirmed the sachets contained 0.35127 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Sanchez presented a different version, claiming he was arbitrarily apprehended by men who later demanded money from him at the PDEA office.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Sanchez of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The court ruled the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved despite the inventory being conducted at the police station. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule. Sanchez appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, thereby proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted Sanchez. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through a strict account of the chain of custody. This procedure includes the immediate marking, inventory, and photography of seized items in the presence of the accused and required witnesses: a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice, AND any elected public official, as mandated by RA 9165 prior to its amendment.
Here, the prosecution failed to comply with this witness requirement. Only a Barangay Kagawad, an elected official, was present during the inventory. There was no representative from the media or the DOJ. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable explanation for this absence, nor did it even attempt to acknowledge or explain the lapse. The Court stressed that the presence of all three witnesses is crucial to insulate the proceedings from any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. The saving clause, which excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds provided the integrity of the evidence is preserved, cannot be invoked when the prosecution does not recognize the lapse or provide a credible explanation for it. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised. The broken chain of custody created reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. Sanchez was ordered immediately released unless held for another lawful cause.