GR 225786; (November, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 225786, November 14, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JULIET RIVERA Y OTOM AND JAYSON LACDAN Y PARTO, ACCUSED, JULIET RIVERA Y OTOM, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Juliet Rivera was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on March 23, 2010, a buy-bust operation was conducted in San Pedro, Laguna. A police officer acted as poseur-buyer and purchased from Rivera one plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride for PHP 200. Upon consummation of the sale, Rivera was arrested. The seized item was marked at the scene, and later, an inventory was conducted at the police station in the presence of a media representative. The item tested positive for the dangerous drug.
Rivera denied the accusation, claiming she and her common-law husband were illegally arrested and searched in their home without a warrant. She alleged that the drugs were planted, and that the police officers demanded money from her. The Regional Trial Court convicted Rivera, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Rivera appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drug due to non-compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, particularly in establishing an unbroken chain of custody over the seized item.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Juliet Rivera. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty. This requires an unbroken chain of custody, ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item from the moment of seizure to presentation in court. The law mandates that immediately after seizure, a physical inventory and photographing must be conducted in the presence of the accused or her representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
The Court found that the buy-bust team committed unjustified deviations from this procedure. The inventory was conducted only at the police station, not at the place of arrest or the nearest police station, without any explanation for this lapse. Crucially, while a media representative was present, the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the mandatory witnesses from the DOJ and an elected public official. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground for this absence, nor did it demonstrate that the police exerted earnest efforts to secure their presence. These breaches in procedure created reasonable doubt as to whether the item presented in court was the same one seized from Rivera. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence when the procedures safeguarding the evidence are not followed. Consequently, the guilt of the accused-appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.