G.R. No. 186459 ; September 1, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. NITA EUGENIO Y PEJER, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Nita Eugenio y Pejer was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on May 13, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Pasig City where PO1 Aldrin Mariano, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased from appellant one plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride using marked money. Upon consummation of the sale, the arresting team apprehended appellant, recovered the marked money, and marked the seized sachet. The item was forwarded to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for shabu. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant, imposing life imprisonment and a fine, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Appellant denied the accusation, claiming she was arbitrarily arrested days earlier and was unaware of the charges. On appeal to the Supreme Court, she contended that the apprehending officers failed to comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 , specifically the mandatory physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or required witnesses, thereby compromising the integrity of the evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, considering the alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED appellant. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that immediately after seizure, the apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or her representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. This procedural safeguard ensures the evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs.
The prosecution failed to prove compliance with these requirements. The testimony of PO1 Mariano confirmed that no inventory or photograph was undertaken in the presence of appellant or any of the required witnesses. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this deviation. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized 0.03 gram of shabu were compromised. The defense properly raised this non-compliance during cross-examination and in its objection to the evidence. Since the prosecution did not overcome the presumption of innocence by proving an unbroken chain of custody, appellant’s guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Acquittal is therefore warranted.