G.R. No. 209785 , June 4, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Marlon Abetong y Endrado, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Marlon Abetong was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for selling one heat-sealed plastic packet containing 0.02 gram of shabu for ₱100.00 in a buy-bust operation on August 22, 2003, in Bacolod City. The prosecution presented PO3 Wilfredo Perez, who acted as the poseur-buyer. He testified that after receiving information about drug sales, he used marked money to buy shabu from Abetong. Upon receiving the plastic sachet, he arrested Abetong and three others. The seized item was kept in an evidence locker, to which only Police Senior Inspector Jonathan Lorilla had the key. On August 25, 2003, PO3 Perez brought the sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where Forensic Chemical Officer Inspector Augustina Ompoy confirmed it contained 0.04 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Abetong denied the accusation, claiming he was illegally arrested while sweeping his floor, handcuffed, and brought to the police station without being informed of the charge or shown any drugs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Abetong, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, ruling that the chain of custody was sufficiently observed despite procedural lapses. Abetong appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 , including the lack of inventory, photographing, and immediate submission of the seized drug to the laboratory.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drug, thereby proving the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA Decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Marlon Abetong based on reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drug, as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 . Specifically, there was no physical inventory or photograph of the seized item in the presence of the accused or required witnesses (media, DOJ representative, elected official). The seized drug was submitted to the crime laboratory three days after confiscation, beyond the 24-hour period mandated by law. The prosecution also failed to provide justifiable grounds for these procedural lapses. PO3 Perez testified that only Inspector Lorilla had the key to the evidence locker where the drug was stored, but Inspector Lorilla did not testify, creating a gap in the chain of custody. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were not properly preserved, and the prosecution did not offer any explanation for the non-compliance. The Court emphasized that while strict compliance may be excused if the integrity of the evidence is preserved and non-compliance is justified, neither condition was met in this case. Therefore, the accused’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.