GR 206912; (September, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 206912 , September 10, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Demosthenes Bontuyan, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Demosthenes Bontuyan was charged with violations of Sections 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and 12 (Possession of Drug Paraphernalia), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The charges stemmed from a search conducted on July 26, 2005, at his residence in Cebu City by a police team armed with a search warrant. During the search, the police recovered twenty (20) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing a total of 7.04 grams of white crystalline substance (shabu) and various drug paraphernalia. The prosecution presented police officers PO2 Jonas Tahanlangit (the searcher) and SPO1 Alfredo Petallar (the recorder), who testified that the search was conducted in the presence of the accused’s brother, Barangay Councilor Segundo Bontuyan, Jr., and a Barangay Tanod, who both signed the Receipt and Certificate of Good Conduct of the Search. The accused refused to sign. The defense presented a different version, claiming the police officers showed no authority, handcuffed the accused before the search, and planted the evidence by placing a plastic vitamin bottle on the table and instructing the brother to open it. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for violations of Sections 11 and 12 of R.A. No. 9165 .
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the CA decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Demosthenes Bontuyan. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, which is crucial in proving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The implementing team did not comply with the mandatory procedures under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . Specifically, there was no evidence presented that the required physical inventory and photograph of the seized items were conducted immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. The prosecution only presented a “Receipt of Property Seized” signed by the barangay officials, which did not satisfy the statutory requirements. The absence of these witnesses was not justified, and the prosecution offered no explanation for the non-compliance. This failure to follow the prescribed procedure created reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from the accused. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were not preserved, warranting acquittal.