G.R. No. 227854 , October 09, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Romelo Doria y Perez, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Romelo Doria y Perez was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution’s evidence established that on January 15, 2008, a buy-bust team was formed to target a known drug peddler, Marcelina Doria. PO2 Michael De Vera was designated as the poseur-buyer. Upon arriving at the target area, PO2 De Vera approached Doria, who was standing in front of a house. When PO2 De Vera asked for Marcelina, Doria stated she was not around and said, “Just buy it from me.” PO2 De Vera handed marked money to Doria, who in turn gave him two plastic sachets of suspected shabu. Upon PO2 De Vera’s pre-arranged signal, the team arrested Doria, who resisted and ran inside a house but was apprehended. A bodily search yielded three more plastic sachets of suspected shabu, two empty plastic sachets, a scissor, a lighter, and the marked money. The seized items were marked at the police station. A Request for Laboratory Examination was prepared, and the items were submitted to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense presented Doria’s testimony, claiming he was merely waiting for a tricycle when he was arbitrarily arrested, boxed, and handcuffed by police officers who later planted evidence against him. The Regional Trial Court convicted Doria, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 , particularly in light of compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the decisions of the lower courts and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Romelo Doria y Perez. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, which is crucial to proving the corpus delicti of the offenses. Specifically, the apprehending officers did not comply with the mandatory witness requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165. The physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were not conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this non-compliance. Testimonies revealed the inventory was done only by police officers at the police station, with no insulating witnesses present. This constituted a substantial gap in the chain of custody, which compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The Court emphasized that the State’s zeal to eradicate illegal drugs must not come at the expense of constitutional rights, and the mandatory procedural safeguards cannot be ignored without justifiable grounds. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were not preserved, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.