GR 221434; (February, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 221434 February 6, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee vs. RESTBEI B. TAMPUS, Appellant
FACTS
Restbei B. Tampus was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on November 9, 2010, a buy-bust operation was conducted where PO1 Adriano Bacatan, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased a plastic pack containing 918.17 grams of shabu from Tampus for ₱3,000,000.00 at the Traveler’s Lodge in Cebu City. Upon consummation of the sale, Tampus was arrested. The police conducted an inventory and took photographs at the arrest site in the presence of media representatives, but no media representative signed the inventory receipt.
Tampus presented a different version, claiming she was arbitrarily arrested at Pier 4 in Cebu City in the early morning of November 9, 2010. She testified that she was merely helping a woman carry a trolley bag when she was apprehended by police officers, who later brought her to a hotel and then to the Traveler’s Lodge, where the alleged shabu was presented. She denied any involvement in the sale of illegal drugs.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, with specific regard to the compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Tampus. The Court emphasized that in drug-related cases, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Section 21 of RA 9165 requires the inventory and photographing of seized drugs to be conducted immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or her representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
Here, the police failed to comply with the witness requirement. While media representatives were present during the inventory, not one of them signed the inventory receipt. The prosecution offered no justification for this procedural lapse. The Court ruled that the presence of the required witnesses is crucial as they serve as independent observers to insulate the seizure and handling of evidence from any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination. The police officers’ cavalier attitude towards this mandatory procedure compromised the integrity of the seized drugs. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.