G.R. No. 233656 , October 02, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. CHARLES ROALES Y PERMEJO, Appellant.

FACTS

Two informations were filed against appellant Charles Roales y Permejo for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs (shabu). The prosecution evidence established that on July 18, 2015, a buy-bust operation was conducted against alias “Charlie” on Narra Street, Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City. PO1 Randy S. Sanoy acted as poseur-buyer and was given marked money. The team coordinated with the PDEA and DAID. At the target area, the confidential informant introduced PO1 Sanoy to appellant. Appellant asked how much drugs were needed, and PO1 Sanoy replied “Halagang dos, panggamit lang” (Worth P200, just for personal use). Appellant received the marked money and gave PO1 Sanoy one plastic sachet of suspected shabu. PO1 Sanoy gave the pre-arranged signal, and the team arrested appellant. Incidental to the arrest, the marked money was recovered from appellant’s pocket, and three more plastic sachets were seized from him. An inventory was conducted at the place of arrest in the presence of appellant and Punong Barangay Bobby L. Bobis. Photographs were taken. No media representative arrived despite being summoned. The seized items were turned over to the investigator and later to the forensic chemist, PSI Anghelisa S. Vicente, who confirmed the contents were methamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested, beaten, forced to admit he was someone else, and later shown a plastic sachet at the police station. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling the prosecution established the elements of the crimes and that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 (the presence of a media representative) did not invalidate the seizure as the inventory was done in the presence of a barangay official and appellant.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction despite alleged irregularities in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, particularly non-compliance with the witness requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED appellant.
The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. Compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is crucial. The law requires the inventory and photographing of seized items 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 (DOJ), AND any elected public official. Here, the prosecution admitted that while an elected barangay official was present during the inventory, no representative from the media was present. The prosecution did not offer any explanation for this absence. The Court ruled that the buy-bust team did not undertake earnest efforts to secure the presence of a media representative, as there was no showing that they attempted to contact specific media representatives or that such representatives were unavailable. The mere fact that they summoned a media representative, without more, does not constitute compliance. The justification for non-compliance must be clearly stated in a sworn affidavit and coupled with steps taken to preserve the integrity of the seized items. The Court further noted that a stricter adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of drugs seized is miniscule, as it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration. Since the prosecution failed to provide a justifiable ground for the procedural lapse, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised. Consequently, appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.