G.R. No. 227741 . March 27, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILLARD LAWAY Y CANOY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that based on a tip, a buy-bust operation was conducted against appellant Willard Laway y Canoy for selling illegal drugs. PO3 Duane Acain acted as the poseur-buyer and successfully purchased four sachets of shabu from Laway for PHP 600.00 using marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, Laway was arrested, and the marked money and the drug sachets were recovered. An inventory of the seized items was conducted at the place of arrest in the presence of a media representative and a barangay kagawad. The items were later confirmed by forensic examination to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Laway testified that he was merely waiting for transportation at a terminal when he was suddenly arrested without cause. He denied any involvement in a drug transaction, claiming the police officers frisked him but found nothing illegal on his person before he was taken into custody. He asserted that the evidence against him was fabricated.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, considering the alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the appellant. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for the illegal sale of drugs, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. This requires an unbroken chain of custody, and strict compliance with the procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165 is crucial to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The law mandates that the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs must be done immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), AND any elected public official.
In this case, the inventory was witnessed only by a media representative and a barangay official. There was no representative from the DOJ present. The prosecution failed to offer any justifiable reason for this absence. More critically, the prosecution did not demonstrate that the buy-bust team exerted any earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ representative. This constituted a breach of the mandatory procedure. Non-compliance is allowed only if the prosecution proves that (1) there was a justifiable ground for the deviation, and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The prosecution’s failure to provide any explanation for the lapse created reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from the accused. Consequently, the integrity of the corpus delicti was compromised, warranting acquittal.