GR 229212; (September, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 229212, September 04, 2019
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Gerardo Labini y Grajo @ “Jerry,” Appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Gerardo Labini y Grajo was charged with violations of Sections 5 (Sale), 11 (Possession), and 15 (Use) of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution’s evidence established that on August 19, 2011, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Makati City. Operative Gary Pagaduan acted as the poseur-buyer and purchased a sachet of shabu from appellant for PHP 300. Upon arrest, appellant was found in possession of a red toothbrush case containing two more sachets. Due to a commotion at the scene, the team brought appellant to a nearby barangay hall, where an inventory of the seized items was conducted in the presence of Barangay Chairperson Wenefreda Ureña. The seized items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant for violations of Sections 5 and 11 but acquitted him for Section 15. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the appellant has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED appellant. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody due to non-compliance with the witness requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165. The law required the inventory to be conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The prosecution only presented Barangay Chairperson Ureña as a witness. The prosecution offered no justification for the absence of the required media and DOJ representatives. This non-observance of the three-witness rule, without any explanation, constituted a clear violation of the procedure for preserving the integrity of the evidence, warranting acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt.