G.R. No. 230065 March 14, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. MARCELINO CRISPO y DESCALSO alias “GOGO” and ENRICO HERRERA y MONTES, Accused-Appellants

FACTS

This case stemmed from a buy-bust operation on November 19, 2012, in Manila. A confidential informant alerted police about the drug activities of alias “Gogo,” later identified as Marcelino Crispo. PO2 Dennis Reyes acted as poseur-buyer. At the location, Reyes and the informant saw Crispo talking to Enrico Herrera. Herrera approached them, took the marked money from Reyes, then went to Crispo to remit the payment and retrieve a sachet of suspected shabu. Herrera handed the sachet to Reyes, who then signaled for the arrest. Upon apprehension, three additional sachets were found on Crispo. The seized items were inventoried at a barangay office in the presence of two barangay kagawads.
Accused-appellants denied the charges, claiming they were framed. Crispo alleged he was forcibly taken from a tricycle, threatened, and extorted at the police station. Herrera claimed he was arrested after accidentally bumping a van, was brought to the station, and made to sign an affidavit without reading it. The Regional Trial Court convicted both for illegal sale of dangerous drugs and Crispo for illegal possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the conviction despite alleged procedural lapses in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

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 corpus delicti of the offenses. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is essential. The law requires the inventory and photography of seized items to be conducted immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused or their representative, an elected public official, and representatives from the Department of Justice and the media.
Here, the inventory was conducted only in the presence of two barangay kagawads. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for the absence of the required DOJ and media representatives. The police officers did not even attempt to contact these required witnesses. This constituted a substantial gap in the chain of custody. The Court ruled that the prosecution did not provide a credible explanation for this deviation from the mandatory procedure. Without proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, the identity of the drugs presented in court could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the presumption of innocence prevails, and accused-appellants must be acquitted.