G.R. No. 219955 , February 5, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. GLENN DE GUZMAN y DELOS REYES, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The prosecution’s case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted against appellant Glenn De Guzman on November 12, 2009, in Olongapo City. Based on surveillance reports, a police team designated PO1 Lawrence Reyes as the poseur-buyer. Appellant allegedly approached PO1 Reyes and sold him a sachet of marijuana fruiting tops for PHP 100.00. Upon the consummation of the sale, the arresting officers apprehended appellant and conducted a body search, recovering the marked money, four more sachets, and a plastic pack containing marijuana. The seized items were marked at the police station. An inventory was conducted in the presence of two barangay officials, but without representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the media. The items were later submitted to the crime laboratory, which confirmed the presence of marijuana. Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was framed and that the evidence was planted after he was arbitrarily arrested.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted appellant for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 , but acquitted him for drug use. The RTC ruled that the buy-bust operation was legitimate and the chain of custody was preserved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision. Appellant elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the seized drugs due to non-compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction despite the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the appellate court’s decision and ACQUITTED appellant. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. This requires strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, which mandates the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.
The prosecution admitted that during the inventory, only two barangay officials were present. Crucially, there was an absence of the required representatives from the DOJ and the media. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this deviation from the mandatory procedure. The Court ruled that this constituted a substantial gap in the chain of custody, which compromised the integrity of the evidence. The marking of the items at the police station, instead of immediately at the place of seizure, further weakened the prosecution’s case. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody created reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.