GR 225500; (September, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 225500. September 11, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JONAS GERONIMO Y PINLAC, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
The case stemmed from a buy-bust operation on April 12, 2010, in Caloocan City. A confidential informant tipped authorities that accused-appellant Jonas Geronimo was peddling illegal drugs. A team was formed, with IO1 Crisanto Lorilla acting as poseur-buyer. Geronimo allegedly sold a sachet of shabu to Lorilla for PHP 500. Upon the consummated sale, Geronimo was arrested. A subsequent search yielded marijuana leaves from his person. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the police headquarters in the presence of Geronimo and a barangay kagawad. Forensic examination confirmed the substances were dangerous drugs.
Geronimo denied the charges, claiming he was forcibly taken from a friend’s house by armed men, including his girlfriend with whom he had a prior argument. He alleged he was beaten, brought to the PDEA office, and framed. He presented a witness to corroborate his alibi. The Regional Trial Court convicted him for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, giving weight to the presumption of regularity in the police officers’ performance of duty.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Geronimo’s conviction despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Geronimo. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. Compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165 is crucial. The law requires the physical inventory and photographing of seized items to be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused or his representative, an elected public official, and representatives from the DOJ and media.
Here, the prosecution failed to establish justifiable grounds for conducting the inventory at the police station instead of at the place of arrest. The apprehending officers offered no explanation why the inventory could not be done at the scene. Moreover, while a barangay kagawad was present, the required representatives from the Department of Justice and the media were absent. This constituted a substantial gap in the chain of custody. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s failure to prove an unbroken chain. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.