G.R. No. 231792 January 29, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ALVIN JUGO y VILLANUEVA, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Alvin Jugo was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that during a buy-bust operation in San Fabian, Pangasinan, PO2 Fernando Romero, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from Jugo. After the transaction, Jugo was arrested, and the marked money was recovered from him. The seized sachet was marked by PO2 Romero at the police station. The required physical inventory and photographing were conducted in the presence of a barangay official but without representatives from the media or the Department of Justice.
Jugo denied the accusation, claiming he was merely flagged down while on a motorcycle with two companions. He asserted that the police failed to comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically the immediate marking at the place of arrest and the presence of the required witnesses during inventory.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established Jugo’s guilt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, with proper observance of the chain of custody rule.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Jugo due to the prosecution’s failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody and justify deviations from the procedural safeguards. For a conviction under RA 9165, the identity and integrity of the seized drugs must be established with moral certainty. Section 21 requires that immediately after seizure, the inventory and photographing be done in the presence of the accused or his representative, an elected public official, and representatives from the DOJ and the media.
Here, the marking was not done immediately at the place of arrest but only at the police station. Crucially, the inventory was witnessed only by a barangay captain, with no explanation offered for the absence of the mandatory DOJ and media representatives. The Court emphasized that while minor procedural lapses may be excused under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must positively demonstrate that such grounds existed and that the integrity of the evidence was preserved. The prosecution’s failure to acknowledge these gaps and provide a plausible explanation constituted a fatal flaw in the chain of custody. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were compromised, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.