G.R. No. 232300 August 1, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Rose Edward Ocampo y Ebesa, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The case originated from a conference addressing complaints about rampant solvent abuse in Barangay Pinalagad, Valenzuela City. A police team was formed to validate reports, leading to surveillance on appellant Rose Edward Ocampo, who was identified as being engaged in the illegal trade of marijuana. Based on this surveillance, a buy-bust operation was planned and coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). On June 6, 2012, the operation proceeded with PO1 Edgardo Llacuna as the poseur-buyer. Inside a billiard hall, Ocampo sold five plastic sachets of marijuana to PO1 Llacuna in exchange for marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, Ocampo was arrested. A subsequent search yielded fifty-eight more sachets of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia. An inventory was conducted at the place of arrest in the presence of Ocampo and a barangay official, with photographs taken. The seized items were then turned over to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for marijuana.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Ocampo for violations of Sections 5 (sale) and 11 (possession) of Republic Act No. 9165 . The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Ocampo argued that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs and that his warrantless arrest was illegal.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved Ocampo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs through an unbroken chain of custody.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Ocampo. The ruling hinged on the prosecution’s failure to comply with the mandatory chain of custody procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165, which jeopardized the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. The law requires the inventory and photography to be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The Court found that while the inventory was done at the arrest site with a barangay official present, the prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for the absence of the required representatives from the media and the DOJ. This constituted a substantial gap in the chain of custody.
The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the drug itself is the corpus delicti, and its identity must be established with moral certainty. The procedural requirements under Section 21 are designed to ensure this integrity. While minor deviations may be tolerated if the prosecution provides a credible explanation and proves the preservation of the evidence’s integrity, no such explanation was provided here. The prosecution merely stated the absence of the required witnesses without attempting to justify the lapse. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised, creating reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from Ocampo. This failure warranted his acquittal.