GR 217887; (March, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 217887 . March 14, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. CLOVER A. VILLARTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Clover A. Villarta was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted against him. PO2 Joseph Bugtai acted as poseur-buyer and successfully purchased one sachet of shabu from Villarta. Upon arrest, a body search yielded two more sachets. The seized items were marked, but only at the police station, not at the place of arrest. The required inventory and photography under Section 21 of RA 9165 were conducted at the police station in the presence of an elected barangay official. However, no representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media was present. The defense stipulated on the forensic chemist’s testimony confirming the substances were methamphetamine hydrochloride.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165, despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Villarta. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which is crucial in drug cases where the integrity of the corpus delicti is paramount. The Court found unjustified deviations from the mandatory procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The apprehending team marked the seized drugs only at the police station, not immediately after seizure at the place of arrest, without explaining why it was not practicable to do so at the scene. More critically, the inventory was not conducted in the presence of the required witnesses from the media and the Department of Justice, with the police merely citing the early morning hour as the reason. The Court ruled this was not a justifiable ground; the law demands earnest efforts to secure their presence, which were not demonstrated. These lapses, which were not adequately explained, compromised the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. Consequently, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was overturned, and the evidence of the corpus delicti was rendered insufficient to sustain a conviction.