GR 231010; (June, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 231010, June 26, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ORLY VISPERAS Y ACOBO, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Orly Visperas was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on September 29, 2010, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Mapandan, Pangasinan, where SPO1 Roberto Molina, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased one plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride from Visperas. The marked money was recovered, and the seized item was forwarded to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for shabu. The defense presented a different version, claiming Visperas was merely invited to the municipal hall, where he was later incarcerated without a valid arrest from a buy-bust.
The Regional Trial Court found Visperas guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecution established the illegal sale and preserved the integrity of the seized drugs. It further ruled that any non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 would not render the evidence inadmissible.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, particularly in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted the accused-appellant. For a successful prosecution under Section 5 of RA 9165, the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, the consideration, and the delivery must be proven, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti. Crucially, the prosecution must also establish the integrity of the seized drug through strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21.
The law mandates that immediately after seizure, a physical inventory and photographing of the drugs must be conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The Court found a complete failure to comply with these mandatory safeguards. The records showed no signatures from the required independent witnesses on the inventory receipt, and the prosecution offered no justification for their absence. There was also no indication that the apprehending officers exerted any earnest effort to secure their presence. This procedural lapse created serious doubt as to the integrity of the seized item, as it opened possibilities of switching, planting, or contamination. Consequently, the identity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were compromised, warranting acquittal based on reasonable doubt.