G.R. No. 229205 . March 06, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO CATINGUEL Y VIRAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Eduardo Catinguel was charged with the illegal sale of marijuana under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on March 3, 2014, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Bugallon, Pangasinan, where PO1 Adhedin Lamsen acted as poseur-buyer. Catinguel allegedly handed over a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing marijuana leaves in exchange for marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, PO3 Rico arrested Catinguel and recovered the marked money. The seized item was not marked at the place of arrest. Instead, PO1 Lamsen kept it in his possession for about an hour until they reached the police station, where an inventory and photography were conducted in the presence of accused-appellant and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, but without any elected barangay official.
The defense presented a different version. Catinguel, a tricycle driver, claimed he was merely invited for questioning by police officers in civilian attire. He voluntarily went to the police station, where he was searched and nothing was found. He alleged that the police then presented marijuana, asserting it belonged to him. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED Eduardo Catinguel. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty, and every link in the chain of custody must be accounted for. The Court found unjustified gaps in the prescribed procedure. First, the marking of the seized item, which is crucial in preserving its integrity, was not done immediately at the place of arrest. PO1 Lamsen’s fear of the accused’s friends was deemed insufficient to justify this deviation, as the prosecution failed to substantiate any actual threat to their safety. Second, the inventory and photography were not conducted in the presence of an elected barangay official, as expressly required by law. The prosecution’s claim that barangay officials were invited but did not come was not a valid justification for non-compliance.
Furthermore, the Court noted a break in the chain of custody regarding the forensic examination. The request for examination and the seized item were allegedly received by a certain PO1 Daus at the provincial office, but the forensic chemist testified she personally received the item from PO1 Lamsen. This inconsistency created doubt about who had custody of the evidence during a critical transfer. These procedural lapses, taken together, compromised the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. The prosecution’s failure to provide justifiable reasons for these deviations meant it did not overcome the presumption of innocence. Consequently, the guilt of the accused-appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.