GR 233100; (February, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 233100 February 14, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. CRISTHIAN KEVIN GUIEB y BUTAY, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Cristhian Kevin Guieb was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on a report from an informant. The poseur-buyer, PO2 Rarangol, successfully purchased a sachet of shabu from Guieb. Upon arrest, a second sachet was recovered from Guieb’s possession. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the police station in the presence of Guieb and a Barangay Captain. They were then submitted to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Guieb denied the charges, claiming he was merely looking for his daughter near a carinderia when he was arbitrarily arrested. He asserted that the drugs were only presented at the police station and that the Barangay Captain refused to sign the inventory as he did not witness the arrest. The Regional Trial Court convicted Guieb, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Guieb’s conviction despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 .
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Guieb due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which compromised the integrity of the seized drugs. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity of the corpus delicti must be proven with moral certainty. The law requires the inventory and photography to be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused and specific witnesses. Here, the police conducted the inventory at the police station, not at the place of arrest, without offering any justifiable ground for this deviation. The prosecution did not explain why it was impracticable to conduct the inventory at the arrest site, a mandatory requirement under the law. Furthermore, while a Barangay Captain was present, the required witnesses from the National Prosecution Service and the media were absent, another unexplained lapse. These procedural breaches created reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from Guieb. Consequently, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was overturned, and Guieb’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.