G.R. No. 216753 February 7, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JESUS DUMA GAY y SUACITO, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Jesus Duma Gay y Suacito, was charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on October 14, 2006, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Zamboanga City where PO3 Joseph Richmond Jimenea, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased twenty vials of morphine from the appellant for PHP 3,000.00. Upon the consummation of the sale, the arresting team apprehended the appellant, who allegedly attempted to flee and drew a firearm. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and subsequently examined, yielding a positive result for morphine.
The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming the appellant was a victim of a “hulidap” or frame-up. The appellant testified that on the said date, he was merely riding his motorcycle when he was flagged down by armed men in civilian clothes near the Western Mindanao Command. He asserted he was forcibly taken, searched, and brought to a police camp where he was detained and forced to admit ownership of the drugs and firearm. He denied any participation in a drug transaction.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused-appellant. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, which is indispensable in proving the corpus delicti of the offense. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity and integrity of the seized substance must be shown with moral certainty. The records revealed a critical gap in the chain of custody. While the arresting officers testified to marking the items, the stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist, PCI Diestro, only established that she received the request for examination and conducted the test. There was no stipulation or testimony that she actually received the seized vials from a specific person, nor was there any evidence detailing how the specimens were handled, stored, and transferred from the investigating officer, SPO1 Gallego, to the crime laboratory. This break in the chain creates reasonable doubt as to whether the items examined were the same ones allegedly seized from the appellant.
Furthermore, the Court noted the prosecution’s failure to comply with the witness requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, which mandates that the inventory and photographing of seized items be conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. Although an inventory sheet was presented, the prosecution did not offer any justification for the absence of these required witnesses during the procedure. This non-compliance, coupled with the broken chain of custody, fatally undermined the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the presumption of innocence prevails, and the appellant must be acquitted. The Court ordered his immediate release unless detained for another lawful cause.