G.R. No. 186466, July 26, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. CHRISTOPHER DESUYO Y BUEN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Christopher Desuyo, a security guard, was convicted alongside Santos De Hitta for illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu under Republic Act No. 9165. The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on May 13, 2003, in Sorsogon City. Police operatives, acting on confidential information, designated PO2 Humberto Bolaqueña as a poseur-buyer. De Hitta, after being introduced as a buyer, approached Desuyo. Desuyo then provided a sachet of shabu to De Hitta, who handed it to PO2 Bolaqueña in exchange for marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the team arrested both accused. A body search yielded another sachet of shabu and drug paraphernalia from De Hitta.
The prosecution presented the buy-bust team members and a forensic chemist. The defense, however, claimed the arrest was a frame-up, alleging Desuyo was merely on duty and was arrested after refusing an extortion attempt. The Regional Trial Court found both accused guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Desuyo appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and violated the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved Desuyo’s guilt for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody procedures.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted accused-appellant Christopher Desuyo. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity and integrity of the seized drugs must be established with moral certainty. The prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory chain of custody procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The law requires that immediately after seizure, a physical inventory and photograph of the drugs be taken in the presence of the accused or his representative, a media representative, a Department of Justice official, and an elected public official.
The records showed a complete absence of any physical inventory or photograph of the seized shabu. No justification was offered for this non-compliance. The prosecution witnesses did not testify that any of the required witnesses were present during the inventory. This failure to observe the procedure compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. While the police testified to marking the items, the glaring absence of the mandated inventory, without any explained justifiable ground, created reasonable doubt as to whether the shabu presented in court was the same substance seized from the accused. Consequently, Desuyo’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting his acquittal.