G.R. No. 223713. January 07, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RODELINA MALAZO Y DORIA, APPELLANT.

FACTS

Appellant Rodelina Malazo was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that on April 28, 2008, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Dagupan City where a poseur-buyer purchased one sachet of shabu from Malazo. Upon her arrest, three more sachets were allegedly found in her possession. The seized items were marked and later submitted to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a different version, claiming the incident was a frame-up. Malazo testified that police officers, one of whom she knew, entered her store, handcuffed her and her mother without cause, and brought them to the police station. She alleged the officers fabricated evidence by photocopying money and that the charges were retaliatory for her having previously turned down a request from a police officer.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, considering the alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Malazo. The legal logic centers on the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which is crucial in proving the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that the inventory and photographing of seized items be done immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or her representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
The Court found that the buy-bust team did not comply with these witness requirements. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this lapse. The police merely had a barangay kagawad present during the photographing, but failed to secure the presence of the required insulating witnesses from the media and the DOJ. The prosecution also did not demonstrate that earnest efforts were made to secure their presence. The marking of the items at the police station, instead of at the place of arrest, further weakened the chain. In drug cases, the State must account for each link in the chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court. Any gap or unexplained deviation raises reasonable doubt. Here, the unjustified non-compliance compromised the integrity of the evidence, leading to the appellant’s acquittal.