G.R. No. 217661 June 26, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. FERDINAND BUNIAG Y MERCADERA, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ferdinand Buniag was charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on August 9, 2008, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Cagayan de Oro City where PDEA Agent IO1 Rubylyn Alfaro, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased marijuana from Buniag. Upon inspection of the contents of a black traveling bag and confirmation of the presence of marijuana, Alfaro gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to Buniag’s arrest. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and subsequently examined, yielding positive results for marijuana.
Buniag denied the accusations, claiming he was merely buying food when he was arbitrarily arrested. He alleged that the arresting officers attempted to extort money from him and that he was forced to point to the black bag and sign documents without understanding their contents. He insisted he did not own the bag or its contents and was unfamiliar with marijuana.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Buniag’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Buniag. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of drugs, the identity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. This requires an unbroken chain of custody over the seized items. The Court found a critical broken link in the chain of custody. The arresting officer, IO2 Pimentel, admitted that the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165—a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official—were not present during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs at the place of arrest or at the police station.
The prosecution failed to offer any justifiable reason for this deviation from the mandatory procedure. While the law allows non-compliance under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must convincingly explain the absence of the required witnesses and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Here, the prosecution did not provide any explanation for the absence of the insulating witnesses. This failure to comply with the prescribed safeguards, without any showing of a genuine effort to secure the required witnesses, compromised the integrity of the seized drugs. Consequently, the identity of the corpus delicti was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.