G.R. No. 199271 . October 19, 2016.
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Jehar Reyes, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused Jehar Reyes was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on November 27, 2002, a buy-bust operation was conducted at Reyes’s residence in Minglanilla, Cebu. PO2 Jesus Rudson Villahermosa, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased a plastic packet of shabu from Reyes for PHP 1,000.00. Upon consummation of the sale, Reyes was arrested and frisked, leading to the recovery of two more plastic packets and the marked money. The seized items were marked at the police station, and a request for laboratory examination was prepared. The items were delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where Forensic Analyst Jude Daniel Mendoza examined them and found the contents positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a different version, claiming the incident was a frame-up. Reyes testified that he was at home when several armed men arrived, handcuffed him, and brought him to the police station without explanation. He denied selling drugs and asserted that the evidence was planted. The Regional Trial Court convicted Reyes, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs with moral certainty, given the alleged lapses in the chain of custody.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Jehar Reyes. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the State must prove not only the transaction itself but also the identity of the prohibited drug with unwavering exactitude. This requires establishing an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court. The Court found critical lapses in the prescribed procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165. The prosecution failed to offer any justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses—a representative from the Department of Justice, an elected public official, and a media representative—during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items immediately after seizure and at the place of arrest. While the marking was done at the police station, the law mandates these steps be undertaken at the place of seizure or at the nearest police station, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved. The prosecution did not explain this deviation. Furthermore, the testimony revealed a gap between the turnover of the evidence from the duty clerk to the forensic chemist, which was not adequately documented or witnessed. These unexplained breaches broke the chain of custody, compromising the integrity of the evidence. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence when the procedures safeguarding the evidence are not followed. Consequently, the identity of the corpus delicti was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.