G.R. No. 180504 ; October 5, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDWIN ULAT y AGUINALDO @ PUDONG, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On February 10, 2003, based on a tip from a confidential informant, the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) and the Makati Police Drug Enforcement Unit planned a buy-bust operation against alias “Pudong” on Seabird Street, Barangay Rizal, Makati City. MADAC volunteer Armando Pol-ot acted as the poseur-buyer, with a pre-arranged signal of lighting a cigarette. Pol-ot, accompanied by the informant, approached the accused, introduced himself as a buyer, and asked for “Piso” (One Hundred Pesos worth) of shabu. The accused took the marked money, left, and returned to hand over a small plastic sachet containing a suspected substance. Upon the signal, the backup team apprehended the accused, who was identified as Edwin Ulat. The marked money was recovered from his pocket. The seized plastic sachet was marked “EUA” at the scene. The accused was brought to the barangay hall and then to the Makati DEU. A laboratory examination confirmed the substance was Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 0.02 gram. The accused was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed he was forcibly taken from his home by armed men without any buy-bust operation occurring.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the corpus delicti and complying with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court and ACQUITTED the accused-appellant. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized illegal drug, creating reasonable doubt as to its identity and integrity. The Court found material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding who had possession of the drug after the sale and who marked it. Specifically, the poseur-buyer (Pol-ot) testified he handed the sachet to a police officer at the scene, while the apprehending officer (PO1 Santos) testified the sachet was given to him at the police station. Furthermore, there was a discrepancy about who marked the sachet with “EUA”—whether it was Pol-ot or PO1 Santos. The prosecution also failed to offer any justifiable reason for its non-compliance with the witness requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 , which mandates the physical inventory and photographing of 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. These lapses in procedure compromised the identity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, the accused’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. He was ordered released from custody unless held for another lawful cause.