G.R. No. 231305, September 11, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Alvin Galisim y Garcia, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Two separate Informations were filed against appellant Alvin Galisim y Garcia for violations of Sections 5 (sale) and 11 (possession), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165). The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on February 19, 2011, in Pasig City. The prosecution evidence, primarily from PO3 Julius Maynigo (poseur-buyer) and PO3 Richard Coquia (team leader), established that a team was formed based on information about drug selling in Villa Monique. PO3 Maynigo, accompanied by a confidential informant, met appellant, who offered to sell drugs. PO3 Maynigo handed marked money to appellant, who in turn gave a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Upon the pre-arranged signal, appellant was arrested. A body search yielded another plastic sachet of white crystalline substance, the buy-bust money, and a .30 caliber carbine ammunition. The seized items were marked at the scene: “JM-Alvin-1-02-19-2011” for the bought item and “JM-Alvin-2-02-19-2011” for the item found in possession. The team proceeded to the police station where pictures were taken and requests for laboratory examination were prepared. The forensic examination confirmed the substances were methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense version, from appellant’s lone testimony, claimed he was arbitrarily arrested while buying milk, mauled, and forced to sign on seized items. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecution proved the elements of the crimes and that non-compliance with Section 21’s witness requirement was not fatal as the integrity of the evidence was preserved.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction despite alleged breaches in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, particularly the failure to comply with the witness requirement under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals’ Decision and ACQUITTED appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which is essential in proving the corpus delicti in drugs cases. The buy-bust team did not comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended. The required witnesses—an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and a representative from the media—were not present during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this non-compliance. The marking was done at the scene, but the inventory and photographing were conducted at the police station without the required witnesses. Mere statements that the procedure was done in the presence of appellant were insufficient. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were therefore compromised, warranting acquittal.