G.R. No. 218914, July 30, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Henry De Vera y Medina, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Henry De Vera y Medina was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that on May 24, 2011, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Baguio City where SPO2 Albert Dolinta, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from De Vera for PHP 5,000.00. Upon arrest, three additional sachets were found in De Vera’s possession. The seized items were marked at the scene, and an inventory was later conducted at the police station in the presence of a barangay official, a media representative, and a DOJ prosecutor. The items were then submitted to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
De Vera denied the accusations, claiming he was merely a passenger in a taxi that was intercepted by armed men who apprehended him. He asserted that the buy-bust operation was a frame-up. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. De Vera appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and identity of the seized drugs due to alleged procedural lapses in the chain of custody.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs, thereby establishing De Vera’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted De Vera. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the State must prove an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the identity and integrity of the seized items from seizure to presentation in court. The Court found critical gaps in the prescribed procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165. The inventory and photography were not conducted immediately at the place of seizure but later at the police station. More importantly, the prosecution failed to provide a justifiable reason for this deviation from the mandated procedure. The law requires the presence of insulating witnesses—a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official—during the physical inventory and photographing. While such witnesses were present at the police station, the prosecution did not explain why the inventory was not done at the arrest site or, if impracticable, at the nearest police station. This unexplained deviation created reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the evidence. Consequently, the corpus delicti of the crimes was not established with moral certainty. The presumption of innocence prevailed, warranting De Vera’s acquittal.