GR 230555; (October, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 230555 , October 09, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felecisimo Bombasi y Vergara, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Felecisimo Bombasi y Vergara was charged with violations of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on October 27, 2011, in San Pedro, Laguna, where appellant allegedly sold one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of shabu to a police poseur-buyer for PHP 200.00, and was found in possession of another sachet. The prosecution presented PO2 Sonny Xyrus De Leon (poseur-buyer), PO1 Rick Jaison Almadilla, and Forensic Chemist Donna Villa Huelgas. They testified that after the sale, appellant was arrested, and the seized items were marked at the scene. At the police station, a physical inventory and photographing were conducted in the presence of a media representative. The items were then submitted to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense presented appellant and his neighbor, claiming he was arrested without cause during lunch at his home and that the evidence was planted.
ISSUE
Was the chain of custody rule complied with, thereby preserving the integrity and identity of the seized dangerous drugs?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted the appellant. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody as required under Section 21 of RA 9165. The inventory of the seized items was conducted only in the presence of a media representative, but not in the presence of an elected public official and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), as mandatorily required by law. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this procedural lapse. Furthermore, the testimony of the forensic chemist did not detail how the seized items were handled, stored, and examined after their receipt, creating a gap in the chain. These breaches in procedure compromised the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, creating reasonable doubt. Consequently, appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.