G.R. No. 225061. October 10, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, V. JOMAR MENDOZA Y MAGNO, APPELLANT.

FACTS

The appellant, Jomar Mendoza y Magno, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for violations of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession) of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution’s case, anchored on the testimony of SPO1 Jimmy Vaquilar, alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted on April 4, 2013, in Aguilar, Pangasinan. SPO1 Vaquilar acted as poseur-buyer, received a sachet of shabu from the appellant in exchange for marked money, and upon arrest, recovered another sachet from the appellant’s person. The seized items were marked, and SPO1 Vaquilar retained custody until their submission to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming the appellant was illegally arrested while on his way home from farm work. The appellant and his witnesses testified that he was taken into custody without explanation, interrogated without being informed of his rights, and that the evidence was planted. The defense argued the arrest was unlawful and the seized items were fruits of the poisonous tree. The RTC and the Court of Appeals rejected the defense, crediting the prosecution’s narrative and finding the chain of custody duly established.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in complying with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the convictions and ACQUITTED the appellant. The acquittal was anchored on the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which is indispensable in proving the corpus delicti in drugs cases. The Court emphasized that under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. This procedural safeguard ensures the integrity of the evidence from seizure to presentation in court.
The Court found a critical gap in the chain of custody. The prosecution’s sole witness, SPO1 Vaquilar, admitted that the required inventory and photography at the place of arrest were not conducted in the presence of the necessary insulating witnesses. While a barangay kagawad was allegedly present during the preparation of a confiscation receipt, there was no showing that representatives from the media or the DOJ, or any elected official, were present as required. The prosecution offered no justifiable ground for this deviation. Consequently, the integrity and identity of the seized drugs were compromised, creating reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones allegedly seized from the appellant. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s failure to meet its burden of proof.