G.R. No. 222648 February 13, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. EDITHA TAMPAN, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellant Editha Tampan on October 7, 2010, in Carcar, Cebu. A PDEA agent acted as poseur-buyer and purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from Tampan for P200.00. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the team arrested Tampan and seized from her the buy-bust money and a pack containing six small and one medium plastic sachet of suspected shabu. The inventory of the seized items was conducted at the PDEA office in the presence of Tampan, a barangay councilor, and a media representative. The seized items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court convicted Tampan for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Tampan denied the accusations, claiming she was merely having dinner when PDEA officers entered her house and arrested her. She asserted she only saw the alleged drugs at the PDEA office and that she was forced to sign the inventory without reading it. She further alleged the operation was intended for a different person. On appeal before the Supreme Court, she argued the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and identity of the seized drugs due to non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

ISSUE

Did the prosecution successfully establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drugs, thereby proving the corpus delicti of the crimes beyond reasonable doubt?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Tampan. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity and integrity of the seized drugs constituting the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. This requires strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which mandates, among others, the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official, at the place of seizure or at the nearest police station.
The Court found a broken chain of custody. The inventory and photographing were not conducted at the place of seizure or at the nearest police station but at the PDEA office, without any justifiable reason offered for this deviation. The apprehending officers also failed to secure the presence of a representative from the Department of Justice during the inventory, as required. These procedural lapses cast reasonable doubt on whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from Tampan. Given the miniscule amounts involved, which are susceptible to planting and tampering, the apprehending team’s failure to provide a plausible explanation for their non-compliance with the mandated procedure warranted Tampan’s acquittal. The prosecution’s failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody resulted in a failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.