G.R. No. 197550 ; September 25, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARTURO ENRIQUEZ y DE LOS REYES, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Arturo Enriquez was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted on June 3, 2003, in Porac, Pampanga. Posing as a buyer, SPO2 David handed marked money to Enriquez, who then gave him a sachet of shabu. Upon arrest, a body search yielded 45 small and one large plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, which forensic examination confirmed to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming Enriquez was arbitrarily arrested while eating at an eatery. He testified that three men in civilian clothes approached him, poked a gun at him, and asked about a certain truck driver. Upon denying knowledge, he was handcuffed and brought to the police station where he was later accused of selling shabu. A helper at a nearby sari-sari store corroborated his account of a rude and forceful arrest.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Arturo Enriquez. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the prosecution must establish with moral certainty the identity of the prohibited drug, which constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. This requires an unbroken chain of custody over the seized items from the moment of confiscation until their presentation in court. The Court found the police officers failed to strictly comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165 regarding the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this non-compliance. The arresting officers did not conduct the inventory at the place of arrest or at the nearest police station. More critically, the testimony revealed that the seized items were merely marked at the police station without the required witnesses. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were therefore compromised. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s failure to account for the seized drugs in a manner that rules out planting, contamination, or substitution. Consequently, the guilt of the accused was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.