G.R. No. 220449 , July 4, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. RUSGIE GARRUCHO Y SERRANO, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Rusgie Garrucho was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on May 29, 2011, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Silay City. A poseur-buyer handed marked money to appellant, who in turn gave a sachet of suspected shabu. Upon the pre-arranged signal, police officers arrested appellant. A subsequent body search at the police station allegedly yielded the marked money and another sachet of shabu. The seized items were photographed and inventoried at the police station in the presence of appellant, a city councilor, and a barangay kagawad, before being submitted for laboratory examination, which confirmed the substance as methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a different narrative. Appellant testified that she was merely buying diapers from a store when she was forcibly taken by unidentified persons to the police station. She denied selling or possessing any drugs and claimed the marked money and drugs were planted. She asserted she was coerced into signing the inventory and posing for photographs. Her neighbors corroborated her account, testifying they witnessed her being dragged away without any prior body search at the scene of the arrest.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved appellant’s guilt for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt, with particular regard to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED appellant. The appeal was granted, and the decisions of the lower courts were reversed and set aside. The Court anchored its ruling on the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, which is crucial in proving the corpus delicti in drugs cases.
The legal logic centers on the mandatory procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 . The law requires the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items to be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation, in the presence of the accused or her representative, and specific witnesses: a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The prosecution admitted that the inventory was done at the police station, not at the place of arrest. While the presence of an elected official was complied with, the required representatives from the media and the DOJ were absent. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this deviation from the statutory procedure. The Court emphasized that while strict compliance may be excused under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must convincingly explain the lapse. Here, the failure to comply, coupled with the absence of any explanation, compromised the integrity of the evidence. Without proof that the drugs presented in court were the very same items seized from appellant, reasonable doubt is created. Consequently, appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.