G.R. No. 232154, August 20, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. BENJAMIN FERIOL y PEREZ, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The prosecution alleged that based on a tip, a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellant Benjamin Feriol for selling dangerous drugs. The poseur-buyer, MADAC Operative Delno Encarnacion, successfully purchased a sachet of shabu from Feriol for PHP 500. Upon the pre-arranged signal, Feriol was arrested, and the marked money was recovered from him. The inventory of the seized item was conducted at the barangay hall in the presence of Feriol and a Barangay Kagawad. The sachet was then turned over to the investigating officer, a request for examination was prepared, and Encarnacion delivered the item to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Feriol presented a different version, claiming he was merely taking a bath when individuals barged into his house, poked a gun at him, handcuffed him, and brought him to the barangay hall where evidence was presented to him. The Regional Trial Court convicted Feriol of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which held that the chain of custody was unbroken and the integrity of the evidence was preserved.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Feriol’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Feriol due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which compromised the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, it is imperative to account for each link in the chain: seizure, marking, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover for laboratory examination, and submission to the court. A glaring break occurred here. After the buy-bust, the seized drug was given to the investigator, SPO1 Esperanzate, who prepared the request for examination. However, it was MADAC Encarnacion, not the investigator, who personally delivered the item to the crime laboratory. The prosecution did not explain why the investigating officer, who had custody, did not perform the turnover himself, nor did it account for the handling between these two custodians. This unexplained gap created doubt about whether the item examined was the same one seized from Feriol.
Furthermore, the Court noted the apprehending team’s unjustified non-compliance with the witness requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165. The inventory was conducted only in the presence of a Barangay Kagawad, with no representative from the Department of Justice or the media. The prosecution offered no justifiable ground for this omission, such as earnest efforts to secure their presence which proved futile. While non-compliance may be excused under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must positively prove such grounds and that the integrity of the evidence was nonetheless preserved. Here, the prosecution failed on both counts. The broken chain of custody and the unjustified procedural lapses created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the dangerous drug, which is the very corpus delicti of the offense. Consequently, Feriol’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting his acquittal.