GR 228881; (February, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 228881 February 6, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DONDON GUERRERO y ELING, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Dondon Guerrero was charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on information from a confidential informant. SPO1 Arnulfo Rosario acted as the poseur-buyer and transacted with Guerrero for PHP 5,000.00 worth of shabu. Upon receiving the marked money from Guerrero’s companion, Guerrero handed a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to SPO1 Rosario. The pre-arranged signal was given, leading to the arrest of Guerrero and his companions. The seized items were marked at the place of arrest in the presence of a barangay official and a media representative.
The defense presented a different version, claiming Guerrero was merely at the location to collect a debt from Marian Dagium when police officers suddenly arrived, arrested the group, and planted the evidence. The Regional Trial Court found Guerrero guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Guerrero appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drug due to alleged irregularities in the chain of custody.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Guerrero’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite alleged breaches in the chain of custody procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Guerrero. The legal logic centered on the prosecution’s failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody, which is crucial in establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti in drug cases. The Court noted that while the marking of the seized sachet was done immediately at the arrest site, the required physical inventory and photographing were not completed there. The team leader ordered the continuation of these steps at their office, but the prosecution did not offer a justifiable ground for this deviation from the mandated procedure of conducting them immediately at the place of seizure. The presence of insulating witnesses at the initial marking did not cure this defect, as the law requires their presence during the inventory and photographing, which were conducted later at a different location. The prosecution’s failure to provide a credible explanation for not complying with the witness requirement during the actual inventory, as mandated by law and its implementing rules, created reasonable doubt on whether the item presented in court was the same one seized from Guerrero. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were compromised, warranting acquittal.