G.R. No. 205787 NOVEMBER 22, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. PABLO ARPOSEPLE y SANCHEZ and JHUNREL SULOGAOL y DATU, Accused-Appellants

FACTS

Accused-appellants Pablo Arposeple and Jhunrel Sulogaol were charged with violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) in three separate cases before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagbilaran City. The charges included illegal sale of shabu (Criminal Case No. 12852), illegal possession of dangerous drugs (Criminal Case No. 12853), and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia (Criminal Case No. 12854), all stemming from a buy-bust operation on September 21, 2005. The prosecution alleged that after a briefing, PO2 Jay Ramos acted as poseur-buyer and successfully purchased one sachet of shabu from the appellants using marked money. Upon Ramos giving the pre-arranged signal, the appellants attempted to flee but were apprehended. A subsequent search yielded additional sachets with suspected drug residue and various drug paraphernalia.
The RTC convicted the appellants on all charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but modified the fine for illegal possession of drugs. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs due to alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, particularly the absence of required witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt by establishing an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused-appellants. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. Compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is crucial to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items. The law requires the inventory and photographing to be conducted immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official, who shall be required to sign the inventory.
The records revealed a broken chain of custody. The prosecution admitted that the required witnesses were not present during the inventory at the police station. Only Barangay Kagawad Mary Jane Ruiz was present; there was no representative from the media or the DOJ. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this procedural lapse. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to provide any explanation for the absence of these insulating witnesses, which is fatal to its case. Without the required witnesses, the evidentiary value of the seized items is compromised, creating reasonable doubt on whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from the appellants. Consequently, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. The failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody warrants acquittal.