G.R. No. 186137; June 26, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DATU NOT ABDUL, Defendant-Appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution alleged that based on a tip, a buy-bust operation was conducted against appellant Datu Not Abdul in Baguio City. Posing as a buyer, PO2 Akia purchased a plastic sachet of shabu from appellant for PHP 6,500. Upon the pre-arranged signal, appellant was arrested. The police officers then brought him to their office where an inventory of the seized item was allegedly conducted in the presence of representatives from the DOJ, media, and the barangay. The sachet was marked and forwarded to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming appellant was a victim of a frame-up. He testified that he was merely visiting Baguio when he was apprehended by men who brought him to the PDEA office. He was forced to admit to selling drugs, and his aunt was allegedly asked for money for his release. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both convicted appellant, giving credence to the prosecution’s narrative and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

ISSUE

The sole issue is whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drug, thereby proving appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED appellant. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through a strict showing of an unbroken chain of custody. The law requires that the physical inventory and photographing of seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. Here, the prosecution failed to prove compliance with these mandatory procedures. The testimonies of the arresting officers were inconsistent and vague regarding who marked the evidence, when it was marked, and the specifics of the inventory. Crucially, there was no evidence presented that the required witnesses from the media, DOJ, and an elected official were actually present during the inventory. This failure to follow the prescribed safeguards created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the drug allegedly seized from appellant. The presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s failure to prove every element of the crime, including the integrity of the evidence.