G.R. No. 207396 , August 09, 2017
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Delia Saunar, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Delia Saunar was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on a tip regarding her illegal drug activities. PO2 Ami Montales acted as the poseur-buyer and allegedly purchased two plastic sachets of shabu from Saunar at her residence. Upon consummation of the sale, the team arrested her. The seized items, with a combined weight of less than 0.1 gram, were later marked, inventoried, and examined, testing positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Saunar denied the accusation, claiming she was framed and that the police found nothing during a raid on her house.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, considering the lapses in the chain of custody procedure.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED Delia Saunar. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty, and the chain of custody rule ensures this by guarding against tampering or substitution. The miniscule amount of drugs involved here made the evidence highly susceptible to planting or tampering, thus requiring strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165. The Court found several critical lapses in the chain of custody. First, the required witnesses for the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were not present at the time and place of seizure and arrest. The inventory was conducted only at the police station, and no photographs of the seized items were taken at the crime scene. Second, the prosecution failed to offer any justifiable reason for this deviation from the mandated procedure. The presence of insulating witnesses at the time of seizure is crucial to prevent switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. The law requires their presence “immediately after seizure and confiscation” to ensure the integrity of the items from the moment they are first possessed. The police’s failure to comply with this requirement, without providing a credible explanation, compromised the evidentiary value of the seized drugs. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody, creating reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s failure to discharge its burden of proof.