GR 213918; (June, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 213918 , June 27, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Evangeline Abella y Sedego and Mae Ann Sendiong, Accused-Appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Evangeline Abella and Mae Ann Sendiong were charged with violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). Following a buy-bust operation in Dumaguete City on January 19, 2009, Abella and Sendiong were apprehended after allegedly selling one sachet of shabu to a poseur-buyer. A subsequent search of Sendiong yielded another sachet. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the arrest site in the presence of the accused and two witnesses, a barangay official and a media representative. A third witness, a DOJ representative, signed the inventory later at the PDEA office. The sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the accused-appellants argued the prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs due to alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drugs, thereby proving the corpus delicti of the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and acquitted the accused-appellants. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody, which is indispensable in proving the identity of the illicit drugs, the corpus delicti of the offense. The law requires the inventory and photography to be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation 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, while the inventory at the arrest site was witnessed by a barangay official and a media representative, the mandatory DOJ representative was absent. The subsequent signing by a DOJ representative at the PDEA office did not cure the defect, as the law requires the witnesses to be present during the physical inventory and photography at the place of seizure. This deviation from the prescribed procedure was not justified by the prosecution. They did not offer any explanation for the absence of a DOJ representative at the arrest site, nor did they prove earnest efforts to secure one. Without such justification, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised. Consequently, the identity of the corpus delicti was not established with moral certainty, warranting acquittal.