G.R. No. 220456 June 10, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Gajir Acub y Arakani a.k.a. “Asaw”, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Gajir Acub was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted on February 10, 2005, in Zamboanga City. PO2 Ronald Cordero acted as poseur-buyer and purchased a plastic sachet of shabu from Acub for a marked ₱500 bill. Upon consummation of the sale, Acub was arrested. The seized item was marked by PO2 Cordero at the police station, then turned over to PO3 Delumpines who prepared the request for laboratory examination. The item was delivered to the crime laboratory and later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Acub denied the accusation, claiming he was a victim of a frame-up. He testified that he was resting at home after pawning his wife’s earrings when he was accosted by police officers, brought to his house which was searched, and then taken to the police station where money was demanded for his release. His wife corroborated his testimony, stating that police officers entered their house without a warrant, found nothing, and later demanded ₱50,000.00 for Acub’s freedom.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drug, complying with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Acub. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and to justify its non-compliance with the mandatory procedures under Section 21. The legal logic requires strict adherence to the prescribed steps—physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a media representative, a Department of Justice official, and an elected public official—to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The prosecution did not present any justifiable ground for the police officers’ complete non-compliance with these witness requirements. The saving clause allowing deviations applies only when the prosecution proves that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved despite the procedural lapses. Here, the prosecution offered no such explanation. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence when the procedures designed to prevent evidence tampering are ignored. Consequently, the identity of the corpus delicti was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.