G.R. No. 232354 . August 29, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANNY LUMUMBA Y MADE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

An Information was filed against Danny Lumumba for the illegal sale of 0.64 gram of marijuana fruiting tops. The prosecution established that a buy-bust operation was conducted on September 21, 2008, in Quezon City. PO1 Franklin Gadia acted as the poseur-buyer and purchased the marijuana from Lumumba using a marked P100 bill. Upon the pre-arranged signal, Lumumba was arrested, and the marked money was recovered from his pocket. The seized item was subsequently marked, inventoried, and photographed. The Regional Trial Court convicted Lumumba, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
During trial, significant inconsistencies emerged regarding the chain of custody. PO1 Gadia testified that the inventory and photographing were done at the arrest site in the presence of a media representative. Conversely, PO1 Bautista stated no photographs were taken at the site, only at the police station. The defense also highlighted that the media representative’s address was not recorded, preventing her subpoena. Lumumba denied the charges, claiming he was arbitrarily taken from his home and that evidence was planted.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized drug with moral certainty, thereby proving Lumumba’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Danny Lumumba. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the State must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the prohibited drug with unwavering exactitude. This requires an unbroken chain of custody under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The law mandates the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, an elected official, a representative from the Department of Justice, and a media representative.
The prosecution failed to comply with this procedure. The testimonies of the arresting officers were irreconcilably conflicting on the crucial detail of where the photographing was conducted—a material fact pertaining to the integrity of the seizure process. Furthermore, the prosecution offered no justifiable explanation for failing to secure the presence of all required witnesses during the inventory. The absence of a complete witness roster, coupled with the conflicting police testimonies, created reasonable doubt as to whether the marijuana presented in court was the very same item allegedly seized from Lumumba. The integrity of the corpus delicti was compromised. Consequently, the presumption of innocence prevails, and acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt is warranted.