G.R. No. 214472 , November 28, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nova De Leon y Weves, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Nova De Leon was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on May 31, 2009, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Parañaque City where SPO1 Luminog Lumabao, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased a plastic sachet of shabu from De Leon for PHP 200.00. Upon the consummation of the sale, the arresting team apprehended De Leon. The seized item was marked, inventoried, and photographed at the barangay hall in the presence of a barangay tanod. It was later confirmed by the crime laboratory to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
De Leon denied the accusation, claiming she was merely waiting for a ride when she was suddenly apprehended by men who forced her into a vehicle, brought her to the barangay hall, and falsely accused her of selling drugs. She asserted that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti due to deviations from the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted accused-appellant Nova De Leon. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty, and every link in the chain of custody must be accounted for. The law requires the inventory and photography of seized items to be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused or her representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.
Here, the prosecution admitted that no representative from the media or the DOJ was present during the inventory, which was conducted only at the barangay hall and not immediately at the place of arrest. The prosecution merely cited heavy rain as the reason for this deviation but failed to offer any justifiable ground for the absence of the required insulating witnesses. The Court ruled that the prosecution did not sufficiently explain these lapses or prove that earnest efforts were made to secure the presence of such witnesses. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were compromised. The buy-bust money was also not included in the inventory, further weakening the prosecution’s case. Without the corpus delicti being proven beyond reasonable doubt, De Leon’s guilt cannot be sustained.