GR 231980; (October, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 231980, October 09, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizalde Diamante y Jereza and Eleudoro Cedullo III y Gavino, Accused-Appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Elizalde Diamante and Eleudoro Cedullo III were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs). The prosecution alleged that on April 6, 2010, a buy-bust operation was conducted where PDEA Agent Michelle Andrade, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from Diamante for PHP 500.00. Diamante handed the buy-bust money to Cedullo III. Upon consummation of the sale, the arresting team apprehended the appellants. The seized item was marked, inventoried, and later submitted to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense claimed they were framed; they testified they were at a house for a drinking session when armed men barged in, arrested them, and falsely claimed a sachet was bought from them. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellants, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the chain of custody over the seized dangerous drug was complied with, thereby preserving its integrity and identity as the corpus delicti of the crime.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused-appellants. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody as required under Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Critical lapses were identified: 1) The inventory of the seized items was conducted at the police station, not immediately after seizure and confiscation at the place of arrest. 2) The required witnesses were not present during the inventory. The Barangay Kagawad and media representative were not at the place of arrest but only signed the inventory later at the police station and a news office, respectively, and there was no representative from the Department of Justice at all. 3) The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for these deviations from the mandatory procedure. These breaches compromised the integrity and identity of the seized drug, creating reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over these clear violations. Consequently, the guilt of the accused-appellants was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.