G.R. No. 216941 , June 10, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. MARIO URBANO TUBERA, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The prosecution’s case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by PDEA agents on May 19, 2008, in Ormoc City. After surveillance confirmed accused-appellant Mario Urbano Tubera’s alleged drug activities, Agent Levi Ortiz acted as poseur-buyer. Assisted by a confidential informant, Ortiz met Tubera, who, after expressing initial suspicion, led them to a dimly lit pathway. There, Ortiz handed a marked P500 bill to Tubera in exchange for one heat-sealed sachet. Upon receiving the item, Ortiz arrested Tubera, but the latter allegedly tossed a plastic container containing other sachets to a lookout who escaped. The seized sachet was marked “MT” at the PDEA office, inventoried, and later confirmed by forensic examination to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Tubera presented a different version, denying the sale. He testified that he was suddenly arrested by PDEA agents while having drinks with a friend. He claimed no buy-bust occurred and that he only saw the drug evidence later at the PDEA office, implying it was planted.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved Tubera’s guilt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Tubera. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the State must prove not only the transaction but, with equal importance, the identity of the prohibited drug through an unbroken chain of custody. This is crucial as the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti. The Court found the prosecution failed to comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 .
The law requires the physical inventory and photographing of seized items 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, the marking, inventory, and photographing were done at the PDEA office, not at the place of arrest. More critically, the prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this deviation. Agent Ortiz admitted they left the scene immediately due to the hostile crowd and the escape of the lookout, but the Court ruled this did not excuse non-compliance. The prosecution did not demonstrate that earnest efforts were made to secure the presence of the required witnesses at or near the place of arrest. This failure to adhere to the procedure designed to prevent planting, switching, or contamination of evidence created reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the drug presented in court. Consequently, the integrity of the corpus delicti was compromised, warranting acquittal.