G.R. No. 223525. June 25, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. BENEDICTO VEEDOR, JR. Y MOLOD A.K.A. “BRIX”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

On September 2, 2004, NBI agents, armed with a search warrant, raided the house of appellant Benedicto Veedor, Jr. in Tondo, Manila. The search yielded a duty-free shopping bag containing 997 grams of marijuana and 323 plastic sachets of marijuana (totaling 382 grams) contained in seven plastic bags, along with an electric sealer and scissors. The items were found inside a cabinet on the first floor. The NBI agents marked the seized items at the scene in the presence of barangay officials and a media representative. The items were later submitted to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division, where they tested positive for marijuana.
The defense presented denial and alibi. Appellant claimed that on the night before the raid, three acquaintances visited his house to watch a DVD. He went upstairs to sleep, leaving them downstairs. He asserted that the seized drugs must have belonged to these visitors and that he had no knowledge of them. Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals rejected this defense, finding him guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for illegal possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and ordered the appellant’s immediate release. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal possession, the identity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. This requires an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs to ensure they are the same items presented in court. The prosecution failed to comply with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165.
The legal logic is clear: the procedure mandates that the physical inventory and photographing of seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation, in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official, who shall all sign the inventory. Here, while barangay officials and a media representative were present, there was a complete absence of any representative from the DOJ. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this deviation. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish who had custody of the drugs from the time they were marked at the scene until they were turned over to the forensic chemist later that evening. This gap and the unjustified non-compliance with the witness requirement compromised the integrity of the evidence, creating reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from the appellant’s house. Consequently, his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.