G.R. No. 207992 , August 11, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ AND ANTONIO MISAREZ Y ZARAGA, Accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Roberto Holgado and Antonio Misarez were charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on January 17, 2007, in Pasig City, a buy-bust operation was conducted where PO1 Philip Aure, acting as poseur-buyer, handed marked money to Holgado. Holgado then called Misarez, who emerged from a restroom and handed a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO1 Aure. Upon the pre-arranged signal, police operatives moved in, but both accused fled into a house and escaped through a ceiling passageway before being apprehended in an adjoining house. PO1 Aure marked the seized plastic sachet with “RH-PA” at the site. The accused were also charged with possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia based on items allegedly seized during the enforcement of a search warrant, but were acquitted of those charges. The defense claimed no buy-bust occurred and that police barged into Holgado’s house, arrested them during a drinking session, and then took them to the police station. The Regional Trial Court convicted them for illegal sale, imposing life imprisonment and a fine of ₱1 million, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellants for violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) was established beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of the law.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and acquitted accused-appellants. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, which is crucial for proving the corpus delicti in drug cases. The Court emphasized that the procedure under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 must be strictly followed, especially when the quantity of drugs seized is miniscule (0.05 gram). The prosecution did not present evidence that the required witnesses (an elected public official, a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media) were present during the inventory and photography of the seized item. The testimony of PO1 Aure only mentioned marking the sachet but did not detail the post-seizure custody steps. The failure to justify non-compliance with the witness requirement compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were not preserved, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.