G.R. No. 219835 . August 29, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. HASHIM ASDALI Y NASA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The prosecution alleged that on September 6, 2004, a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellant Hashim Asdali in Zamboanga City. A civilian informant reported his drug-pushing activities to the police. PO1 Wilfredo Bohon acted as poseur-buyer and was given marked money. At the target area, the informant pointed to Asdali, who, upon receiving the P200, handed over two plastic sachets of suspected shabu. PO1 Bohon then arrested him. A subsequent search yielded sixteen more sachets from a cigarette pack in Asdali’s possession. The seized items were marked at the police station and later confirmed by forensic examination to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Accused-appellant presented a different version. He claimed he was at home with his family when armed men in civilian clothes entered, searched his house, found nothing, but arrested him anyway. He denied any knowledge of a drug transaction and asserted he only learned of the charges against him at the Hall of Justice. The Regional Trial Court convicted him for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs, thereby proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted accused-appellant. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the State must prove with moral certainty the identity of the prohibited drug, as it constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense. This requires an unbroken chain of custody over the seized items from the moment of confiscation until their presentation in court. The law mandates specific procedural safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165, including the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
The prosecution failed to justify its non-compliance with these mandatory procedures. The police officers did not conduct the inventory and photography at the place of arrest or at the nearest police station. Crucially, they presented no justifiable reason for the absence of the required insulating witnesses—a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected official—during the inventory. The prosecution merely offered a general statement that no such witnesses were available, which the Court deemed insufficient. The arresting officers did not even attempt to secure their presence. This unexplained deviation from the strict chain of custody protocol created reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from the accused. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were compromised, warranting acquittal.