G.R. No. 227217 , February 12, 2020
Jessie Tolentino y Samia, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jessie Tolentino y Samia was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The Information alleged that on February 13, 2009, in Tarlac City, he sold three heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing dried marijuana fruiting tops to a poseur-buyer. The prosecution’s version, based on testimonies from police officers and the poseur-buyer Romeo Dela Pena, was that a buy-bust operation was conducted using marked money. Dela Pena purchased marijuana from the petitioner, and upon the consummated sale, gave a pre-arranged signal leading to the petitioner’s arrest. The seized items were inventoried at the barangay captain’s house, photographed, marked, and later brought to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for marijuana. SPO1 Navarro claimed exclusive possession of the items from inventory until laboratory analysis. The defense presented a different version, claiming the petitioner was at work when arrested, that no sale occurred, and that he was framed. The Regional Trial Court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved and that non-compliance with the witness requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165 was not fatal.

ISSUE

Whether or not the petitioner’s conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs should be upheld, considering the alleged failure of the prosecution to establish every link in the chain of custody and to comply with the procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

No, the conviction should not be upheld. The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted the petitioner. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and to justify its non-compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165. Specifically, the apprehending officers did not conduct the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the required witnesses—an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice, and a media representative—as mandated. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this lapse. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with these procedures is crucial in drug cases because they ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized corpus delicti. The failure to adhere to these requirements, without any showing of justifiable grounds, compromised the identity of the seized drugs and warranted the petitioner’s acquittal based on reasonable doubt.