G.R. No. 232487. September 03, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMMA T. PAGSIGAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Emma T. Pagsigan was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on a tip from a confidential informant. PO2 Jayson Constantino acted as poseur-buyer and handed marked money to Pagsigan in exchange for a sachet of shabu. Upon arrest, another sachet was allegedly recovered from her. The seized items were marked at the barangay hall in the presence of officials but without an inventory receipt, photographs, or representatives from the DOJ or media. The defense presented a different version, claiming Pagsigan was merely accompanying a friend and was arbitrarily arrested, detained, and interrogated about her friend’s whereabouts.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Pagsigan, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The CA acknowledged procedural lapses in the chain of custody but held that the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved. Pagsigan appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, thereby compromising the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, thereby proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the CA decision and ACQUITTED Emma T. Pagsigan. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity of the illicit drug must be established with moral certainty, requiring an unbroken chain of custody. The Court found that the buy-bust team committed unjustified deviations from the strict procedural requirements of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. There was a failure to immediately conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items at the place of arrest or at the nearest police station. The prosecution’s justifications—that the area was “critical,” they had no camera, and the operation was hastily conducted—were deemed insufficient to constitute a justifiable ground for non-compliance. The Court ruled that such procedural gaps, absent any credible explanation, created reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the drugs presented in court as the same items seized from the accused. The integrity of the corpus delicti was not preserved. Consequently, Pagsigan’s acquittal was ordered on the ground of reasonable doubt.