G.R. No. 201576, July 22, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ANALYN ADVINCULA y PIEDAD, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Analyn Advincula was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted on February 5, 2009, in Manila. PO2 Jackson Caballero acted as poseur-buyer and purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from Advincula for a marked ₱200 bill. Upon consummation of the sale, Advincula was arrested. PO2 Caballero marked the seized sachet with “AAP” at the scene and later brought it to the police station for examination, which confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Advincula, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The CA held that while the police failed to strictly comply with the inventory and photographing requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved as the chain of custody was unbroken. Advincula appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and prove the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, particularly in establishing the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti through an unbroken chain of custody.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted Analyn Advincula. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty, and every link in the chain of custody must be accounted for to preserve its integrity from seizure to presentation in court. The Court found flagrant procedural lapses that broken the chain of custody.
Specifically, the apprehending officers failed to conduct the required physical inventory and photograph of the seized item immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or her representative, a mandatory witness, and any elected public official, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this non-compliance. Furthermore, the testimony revealed that the marking was done only by the poseur-buyer at the scene, and there was no evidence showing who had custody of the drug from the time of marking until its delivery to the investigating officer and subsequently to the forensic chemist. These gaps created reasonable doubt on whether the item presented in court was the same one seized from the accused. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence when the integrity of the corpus delicti is compromised.