G.R. No. 229515 , November 27, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NIDA GUILLERMO Y DE LUNA AND DESIREE GUILLERMO Y SOLIS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Nida Guillermo and Desiree Guillermo were charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on September 13, 2010, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Caloocan City. IO1 Grace Tactac acted as the poseur-buyer for P350,000.00 worth of shabu. After coordination and a change of venue to a 7-11 store, Nida arrived with Desiree, who carried a blue paper bag containing 11 plastic sachets of white crystalline substance. Upon receipt of the bag, IO1 Tactac gave the marked money and signaled for the arrest. The team arrested the accused and recovered the buy-bust money from Desiree. The inventory and marking of the seized items were conducted at the PDEA office, witnessed by a barangay kagawad and a media representative, but not by the accused or a DOJ representative. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense claimed they were arbitrarily arrested while on their way to separate errands, framed, and that they heard the arresting officers state they were not the real targets.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, particularly in light of compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused-appellants. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which is crucial in proving the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. The buy-bust team did not conduct the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items immediately at the place of arrest or at the nearest police station, as required by law. They only did so at the PDEA office in Quezon City without providing a justifiable reason for the deviation. Furthermore, the inventory was not witnessed by the accused or their counsel, a representative from the DOJ, or an elected public official, as mandated. The presence of only a barangay kagawad and a media representative was insufficient. These lapses in procedure, without any showing of justifiable grounds, compromised the integrity of the evidence and created reasonable doubt as to the corpus delicti. Consequently, the accused-appellants are ordered immediately released from custody unless held for another lawful cause.