G.R. No. 206738 ; December 11, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ERLINDA MALI y QUIMNO a.k.a. “Linda”, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On January 26, 2004, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Zamboanga City based on a tip regarding the illegal drug activities of a woman known as “Linda.” PO1 Hilda Montuno acted as the poseur-buyer and was given a marked ₱100 bill. At the target area, the informant pointed out the accused-appellant, Erlinda Mali. Montuno approached and told Mali she wanted to buy “pisolang” (₱100 worth). Mali then handed over a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, and Montuno gave her the marked money. Montuno then executed the pre-arranged signal, leading to Mali’s arrest. A second sachet containing aluminum foil strips was recovered from her. The seized items were marked and turned over to the investigator, who then submitted them to the crime laboratory for examination, which confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Mali of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Mali appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs, particularly criticizing the absence of the required witnesses during the physical inventory and the fact that the forensic chemist who examined the drugs did not testify.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Erlinda Mali. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody. Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that immediately after seizure, the apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the items in the presence of the accused or their representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
The prosecution failed to comply with this procedure. No physical inventory or photograph of the seized items was presented in court. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this non-compliance. Furthermore, the forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory examination did not testify; instead, another officer who was merely the custodian of the report was presented. This created a significant gap in the chain of custody, as the testimony of the examining chemist is crucial to establish that the substance presented in court is the same one examined and found to be illegal drugs. The procedural lapses cast reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, the presumption of innocence prevails, and the accused-appellant is entitled to an acquittal.