GR 216754; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 216754 July 17, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. HAVIB GALUKEN y SAAVEDRA, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Havib Galuken was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on May 26, 2009, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Tacurong City where a poseur-buyer purchased two sachets of shabu from Galuken. After the exchange, the arresting team apprehended him. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the police station in the presence of a barangay kagawad, and were later confirmed by forensic examination to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense presented a denial, claiming Galuken was merely buying a shirt and having lunch before being arbitrarily arrested by unknown persons near a terminal.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Galuken not of the crime charged, but of the lesser offense of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11 of RA 9165. The RTC reasoned that the evidence for the sale was insufficient, as the poseur-buyer acted more like a delivery man and the confidential informant was not presented. However, it held that illegal possession was necessarily included in the charge of illegal sale. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified it back to the original charge of Illegal Sale.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted Galuken. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty, and this requires an unbroken chain of custody. The Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with the strict custodial procedures under Section 21 of RA 9165, which mandates the immediate inventory and photography of seized items 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, the inventory was conducted only in the presence of a barangay kagawad. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for the absence of the other required witnesses, nor did it even attempt to explain this lapse. This constituted a substantial gap in the chain of custody, which compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody warranted acquittal.