G.R. No. 188132 ; February 29, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROSEMARIE MAGUNDAYAO y ALEJANDRO alias “ROSE,” Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On April 14, 2005, based on a tip from a confidential informant, a buy-bust team was formed by the Taguig City Police. PO2 Rey Memoracion was designated as the poseur-buyer, provided with marked money, and accompanied by the informant to meet accused-appellant Rosemarie Magundayao at a specified location. PO2 Memoracion testified that he handed the marked money to Magundayao, who in turn gave him a sachet of suspected shabu. Upon giving the pre-arranged signal, the back-up officers arrested Magundayao. A subsequent search yielded another sachet from her pocket and the recovery of the marked bills. The seized items were marked at the scene and later confirmed by forensic examination to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Magundayao testified that she was merely waiting for a ride when she was forcibly apprehended by men who identified themselves as police officers. She claimed she was brought to a dark area, interrogated, and then to the police station where she was forced to admit ownership of the drugs and to point to them. She asserted the evidence was planted and that the prosecution failed to prove the integrity and identity of the seized items due to non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 .

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Rosemarie Magundayao. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty, and the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court. The Court found a broken chain of custody. The arresting officers failed to strictly comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, which mandates the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or her representative, a media representative, a Department of Justice representative, and an elected public official. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this procedural lapse.
The testimony revealed that the marking was done at the scene, but the required witnesses were not present during the inventory. The police merely stated they conducted the inventory at the station without the mandated third-party witnesses. The Court ruled that the prosecution’s failure to provide a credible explanation for this deviation, and to prove that earnest efforts were made to secure the presence of such witnesses, compromised the integrity of the evidence. While non-compliance may be excused under justifiable grounds, none were sufficiently established here. Consequently, the identity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were not preserved, creating reasonable doubt as to Magundayao’s guilt.