G.R. No. 228893 , November 26, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOY MARCELO Y PAGUIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Joy Marcelo was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on a tip from a confidential informant. PO1 Jun Acosta acted as the poseur-buyer and was given a marked P1,000 bill. At the target area, the informant introduced PO1 Acosta to Marcelo as a buyer. Marcelo asked how much was being purchased, received the marked money, and then retrieved several plastic sachets from behind his child’s diaper. PO1 Acosta selected two sachets, gave the pre-arranged signal, and arrested Marcelo. A struggle ensued, during which Marcelo dropped additional sachets. The police recovered the marked money from Marcelo’s pocket and the dropped sachets from the ground.
The seized items were marked at the barangay hall. An inventory was conducted in the presence of Marcelo, a barangay official, and a media representative, but not the required Department of Justice (DOJ) representative. The items were then submitted to the crime laboratory, which confirmed they contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The Regional Trial Court convicted Marcelo, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Marcelo appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, particularly in establishing an unbroken chain of custody over the seized items.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Joy Marcelo. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody, which is crucial in drug cases to establish the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The arresting team committed unjustified deviations from the mandatory procedure under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), as amended.
The law requires the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs to be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. Here, the inventory was not conducted at the place of arrest but later at the barangay hall. More critically, while a barangay official and a media representative were present, there was no DOJ representative. The prosecution offered no explanation for this absence, nor did it demonstrate any earnest effort to secure one. The police also failed to provide justifiable grounds for these procedural lapses. The Court emphasized that while strict compliance may not always be possible, the prosecution must credibly explain any deviation. The unjustified non-compliance created reasonable doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from Marcelo. Consequently, his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.