G.R. No. 225596 , January 10, 2018
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ALEXANDER ALVARO y DE LEON and ROSALIE GERONIMO y MADERA, Accused-Appellants

FACTS

Accused-appellants Alexander Alvaro and Rosalie Geronimo were charged with violating Section 5 (illegal sale) of Republic Act No. 9165 . A separate charge for violating Section 11 (illegal possession) was filed against Geronimo. The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on a tip. Posing as a buyer, operative Juan Siborboro handed marked money to Geronimo, who passed it to Alvaro. Geronimo then handed Siborboro a sachet of suspected shabu. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the team arrested the appellants. A second sachet was confiscated from Geronimo. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and submitted for examination, testing positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a different narrative. Geronimo claimed she was resting at her uncle’s house when armed men barged in, searched the premises, found nothing, and then arrested her and Alvaro. She alleged the evidence was planted and that they were forced to sign documents. Both appellants pleaded not guilty.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, considering the alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused-appellants. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity and integrity of the seized drugs must be established with moral certainty. Compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21 is crucial to prevent tampering or substitution. The law requires the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or their representative, an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media.
The Court found that the apprehending team failed to strictly comply with these requirements. The inventory was signed only by a barangay chairman and a police officer, with no representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground for this omission. Moreover, the testimony revealed lapses in handling: the marking was done at the arrest site but the inventory was conducted later at the police station without the accused present, and the forensic chemist who examined the drugs was not presented in court to testify on the integrity of the specimens received. These gaps in the chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from the appellants. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were compromised, warranting acquittal.