G.R. No. 177222 October 29, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RANILO DE LA CRUZ Y LIZING, appellant.

FACTS

On September 12, 2002, appellant Ranilo Dela Cruz y Lizing was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs). The Information alleged that he sold one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) to poseur-buyer PO2 Nick Resuello for ₱100.00. The prosecution evidence showed that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on information that appellant, alias “Boy Tigre,” was engaged in illegal drug trade. PO2 Resuello, as poseur-buyer, approached appellant, handed him the marked money, and received the plastic sachet in exchange. Upon Resuello’s pre-arranged signal, the backup team arrested appellant. The seized item was marked with “BP” (initials of PO2 Braulio Peregrino) at the police station and later tested positive for shabu. The defense presented a different version, claiming appellant was taken from his house by two men to see the barangay captain, questioned about drug pushing, and later brought to the police station where an investigator demanded money, and when his wife failed to raise it, a case was filed against him. The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto. Appellant appealed, contending that the apprehending officers failed to comply with the custody and disposition procedures under Sections 21 and 86 of R.A. No. 9165, casting doubt on the validity of his arrest and the admissibility of the seized evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, considering the alleged non-compliance with the procedural requirements of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the custody and disposition of the seized drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and acquitted appellant. The Court found that the apprehending officers failed to strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Specifically, there was no evidence that the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs were conducted in the presence of appellant or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, or any elected public official, who were required to sign the inventory. The prosecution only presented testimony that the seized item was marked with “BP” at the police station, but did not establish compliance with the witnessing and inventory requirements. The Court ruled that this omission significantly impaired the prosecution’s case, as the dangerous drug is the corpus delicti of the offense. The proviso in the IRR allowing non-compliance under justifiable grounds if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved was not applicable because the prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground for the procedural lapses. The presumption of innocence must prevail, and the prosecution’s failure to meet the required quantum of evidence warrants acquittal.