G.R. No. 233336 January 14, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DON EMILIO CARIÑO y AGUSTIN, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Don Emilio Cariño was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that during a buy-bust operation, police officers recovered one plastic sachet from Cariño upon consummation of the sale and another sachet during a search incidental to his arrest. While waiting for the required witnesses—a barangay kagawad, a DOJ representative, and a media representative—the apprehending officers conducted the marking and inventory of the seized items at the place of arrest in Cariño’s presence. The witnesses arrived later and signed the inventory receipt. The items were then brought to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Cariño denied the charges, claiming he was a former police asset who was framed after refusing a surveillance task. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The CA held that the prosecution established all elements of the crimes and that the premature inventory did not compromise the integrity of the seized drugs.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drugs, thereby proving Cariño’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Cariño. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through a strict account of the chain of custody. Section 21 of RA 9165 requires the physical inventory and photography to be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused and specific witnesses: an elected public official, and representatives from the DOJ and the media.
Here, the inventory was conducted before the arrival of the required witnesses. While the law allows conduct of marking at the nearest police station, the requirement for witness presence during inventory is fundamental to prevent switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. The prosecution failed to offer any justifiable ground for this deviation from the mandated procedure. The apprehending officers did not even attempt to explain why they could not wait for the witnesses before conducting the inventory. This unjustified non-compliance breached the chain of custody protocol. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised. Without the identity of the corpus delicti being preserved beyond reasonable doubt, Cariño’s guilt cannot be sustained. The Court reversed the CA decision and ordered his immediate release.