GR 229669; (November, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 229669 , November 27, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ESRAFEL DAYON Y MALI @ “BONG,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
An Information was filed charging accused-appellant Esrafel Dayon y Mali @ “Bong” with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, allegedly committed on August 6, 2013. The prosecution’s version states that a buy-bust operation was conducted, during which accused-appellant sold a plastic sachet containing 0.040 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride to a poseur-buyer. The seized item was marked, inventoried, and photographed at the place of arrest in the presence of accused-appellant and a media representative. The defense version claims accused-appellant was arbitrarily arrested on August 5, 2013, while on his way to Divisoria, and that evidence was planted on him. The Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the court a quo correctly convicted accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite alleged procedural lapses in the chain of custody, specifically the failure to comply with the witness requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the appeal, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals Decision, and ACQUITTED accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and identity of the seized drug due to unjustified non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The marking, inventory, and photographing were conducted only in the presence of a media representative, absent the required witnesses from the Department of Justice and any elected public official. The prosecution did not recognize this lapse or provide a justifiable reason for the non-compliance, nor did it show any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the presence of the absent witnesses. The saving clause under the law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations could not apply because the apprehending team did not tender any justification for their procedural lapses. Consequently, the identity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were compromised, warranting acquittal.