G.R. No. 218428 , November 07, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Segundo Bricero y Fernandez, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed against Segundo Bricero for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs). The prosecution’s evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted on February 17, 2008, in Quezon City. PO1 Teresita Reyes acted as the poseur-buyer and, with a confidential informant, approached Bricero. After expressing intent to buy shabu, Bricero handed over a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance in exchange for marked money. PO1 Reyes then gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to Bricero’s arrest. The seized item was marked and inventoried at the place of arrest and later submitted to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Bricero denied the sale, claiming he was sleeping inside his house when about 15 police officers entered, handcuffed him, and brought him to their office. He alleged that PO2 Ortiz demanded Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) from him. He testified that he pleaded for forgiveness from the officers not because he admitted guilt, but because he was sick and suffering from spinal ache.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite alleged irregularities in the chain of custody of the seized item.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted Bricero. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of drugs, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty, and an unbroken chain of custody is crucial. The Court found that the buy-bust team committed unjustified deviations from the mandatory procedure under Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, which requires the physical inventory and photographing of seized items to be conducted immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.
The records showed that while an inventory was done at the place of arrest, it was not established that the required third-party witnesses were present. Prosecution witness PO2 Ortiz merely testified that the inventory was done in the presence of “some barangay officials,” without specifying who they were or if they were indeed elected officials. More critically, no representative from the media or the DOJ was shown to be present. The prosecution offered no explanation for these lapses. The Court ruled that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence accorded to the accused. The unjustified failure to comply with the witness requirement compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug, creating reasonable doubt as to its identity as the very item seized from Bricero. Consequently, his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.