G.R. No. 205821 , October 1, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-appellee, vs. Garry Dela Cruz y De Guzman, Accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Garry Dela Cruz was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on September 14, 2004, in Zamboanga City. Based on a tip from a civilian informant, a police team was formed with PO1 Wilfredo Bobon as the poseur-buyer and SPO1 Roberto Roca as back-up. PO1 Bobon used a marked ₱100.00 bill to purchase one heat-sealed plastic sachet of suspected shabu from Dela Cruz. After the transaction, PO1 Bobon gave a pre-arranged signal, and Dela Cruz was arrested. A search incident to arrest yielded six more heat-sealed sachets of suspected shabu from Dela Cruz. The seized items were brought to the police station where PO1 Bobon marked them. The sachets were later submitted for laboratory examination, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court convicted Dela Cruz, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Dela Cruz appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs and assailing the validity of the buy-bust operation.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165 , particularly by complying with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Garry Dela Cruz. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, thereby failing to prove the corpus delicti of the crimes charged. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity and integrity of the seized drugs must be preserved with moral certainty. The procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items 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 did not offer any justifiable reason for the police officers’ non-compliance with these requirements. The testimony of PO1 Bobon revealed that the marking of the seized items was done only at the police station, and there was no evidence that the required witnesses were present during the inventory. The Court stressed that the miniscule amount of drugs seized (0.0120 gram for sale and a total of 0.1285 grams for possession) made the strict adherence to the chain of custody rule even more critical. The unjustified non-compliance with the procedure created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal.