G.R. No. 230789 April 10, 2019
PERLY TUATES y CHICO, Petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FACTS

Petitioner Perly Tuates was charged with violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 for transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride. The prosecution alleged that on March 2, 2012, Jail Guard Katehlene Bundang, while frisking Tuates during a visit to the Provincial Jail of Zambales, found a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance tucked at Tuates’s waist. Bundang marked the sachet with her initials and, together with PO2 Virgilio Fennolar, brought it to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense presented a different version, claiming Tuates was framed. Tuates testified that during an unusually prolonged and intrusive search, Bundang placed her hand inside Tuates’s pants and then shouted that she found something, after which an object fell out.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug through an unbroken chain of custody.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED Tuates. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal drugs, the identity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty, and every link in the chain of custody must be accounted for. The Court found that the prescribed procedures under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology Standard Operating Procedure (BJMP-SOP 2010-05) were blatantly disregarded. The SOP required the immediate apprehension of the visitor, the presence of at least two witnesses during the search and inventory, and the preparation of a detailed report. The evidence showed Bundang conducted the search alone, the required witnesses were not present, and no inventory or photographs were taken at the place of seizure. The marking was done at the warden’s office, not immediately upon confiscation. These lapses, unexplained by the prosecution, compromised the integrity of the seized item from the very beginning. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot apply when there is a clear disregard of standard procedures. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody, creating reasonable doubt as to the identity of the drug presented in court. The constitutional presumption of innocence prevails.