G.R. No. 231989 , September 4, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Romy Lim was charged with violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) following a buy-bust operation on October 19, 2010. Intelligence Officer 1 Albert Orellan and his team from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) conducted the operation based on information from a confidential informant. The team apprehended Lim and his stepson, Eldie Gorres, inside their house in Cagayan de Oro City after a poseur-buyer allegedly purchased shabu from Gorres. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and subsequently submitted for laboratory examination, which confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, thereby proving the corpus delicti of the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted accused-appellant Romy Lim. Justice Caguioa, in a separate concurring opinion, agreed with the ponencia’s finding that the prosecution failed to comply with the strict procedural requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, which safeguards the integrity of seized evidence. The legal logic centers on the imperative of establishing an unbroken chain of custody to prove the identity of the corpus delicti. 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 their representative, an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice, and a media representative. This procedure ensures the evidentiary value of the seized items is preserved from the moment of confiscation until presentation in court.
The records revealed critical lapses. The inventory was not conducted at the place of seizure, the nearest police station, or the nearest PDEA office, as allowed under the law’s implementing rules, but was instead done at the PDEA Regional Office without a clear showing that this was the most practicable option. More fatally, the required witnesses were not present during the inventory at the time and place of seizure. The prosecution offered no justifiable ground for this non-compliance. The absence of these insulating witnesses at the initial custody stage creates doubt regarding the identity and integrity of the drugs allegedly seized from the accused. Without this unbroken chain, the very identity of the corpus delicti is compromised. Consequently, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. The failure to prove an essential element of the crime—the identity of the dangerous drug—mandates acquittal.