PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSELITO IBARRA Y GONZALES, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 191752 . February 6, 2013.

DOCTRINE: The failure of the prosecution to prove the identity of the prohibited drug with moral certainty, coupled with the police officers’ non-compliance with the procedure on the chain of custody under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 , particularly the making of an inventory and the photographing of 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, warrants the acquittal of the accused on reasonable doubt.

FACTS

On June 15, 2004, a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellant Joselito Ibarra y Gonzales in Quezon City. PO2 Arnel C. Simbre acted as the poseur-buyer and purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from Ibarra for PHP200.00. Upon consummation of the sale, PO2 Simbre arrested Ibarra and recovered the buy-bust money. A further search yielded another plastic sachet from Ibarra’s pocket. The seized items were marked by PO2 Simbre at the police station. The two sachets were later submitted to the crime laboratory, which confirmed they contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Ibarra was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . The Regional Trial Court convicted Ibarra, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Ibarra appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Ibarra’s conviction despite the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, thereby failing to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Joselito Ibarra y Gonzales on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. The chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is crucial to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The law requires that immediately after seizure, a physical inventory and photographing of the drugs be done in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.

Here, the prosecution failed to comply with this procedure. The police officers did not conduct an inventory or take photographs of the seized sachets in the presence of the required witnesses. PO2 Simbre merely testified that he marked the items at the police station without any mention of the presence of the accused or the mandated third-party witnesses. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this non-compliance. This failure created reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from Ibarra. Consequently, the integrity and identity of the *corpus delicti* were compromised. When there is a lapse in the chain of custody that raises doubt about the evidence’s integrity, the accused must be acquitted.