GR 233697; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 233697 July 10, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ARNELLO REFE y GONZALES, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
The prosecution’s evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted against Arnello Refe y Gonzales based on a tip from an informant. PO1 Rolly Llama acted as the poseur-buyer and was given a marked ₱500 bill. At the location, Arnello handed PO1 Llama a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance in exchange for the marked money. Upon the consummation of the sale, PO1 Llama arrested Arnello. The seized item was marked at the scene in the presence of barangay officials. An inventory was later conducted at the police station, which Arnello and some barangay officials signed. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Arnello presented a different version, claiming he was merely near the elementary school to meet his live-in partner when he was suddenly apprehended by police officers who demanded money. He denied any involvement in a drug transaction, essentially alleging a frame-up.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully proved Arnello’s guilt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Arnello Refe y Gonzales. The Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 , thereby creating reasonable doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti.
The legal logic centers on the imperative of proving an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the identity and integrity of the seized drug from the moment of seizure until its presentation in court. The law requires the inventory and photography to be conducted immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or his representative, an elected public official, and a representative from the Department of Justice or the media. The Court noted that the inventory in this case was not conducted at the place of arrest but later at the police station. More critically, the prosecution offered no justifiable ground for failing to secure the presence of a representative from the DOJ or the media, as required. The presence of barangay officials alone did not suffice. This unjustified deviation from the mandated procedure compromised the establishment of an unbroken chain of custody. Without proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved, the identity of the corpus delicti could not be established with moral certainty. Consequently, Arnello’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating his acquittal.