GR 234051; (November, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 234051 , November 27, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARNEL AMBROSIO Y NIDUA A.K.A. “ARNEL,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Arnel Ambrosio y Nidua was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. The prosecution’s version states that on June 18, 2013, a buy-bust team was formed based on information that accused-appellant was engaged in illegal drug pushing. A poseur-buyer bought Php100.00 worth of marijuana from accused-appellant, who was subsequently arrested. Seized from him were additional plastic sachets containing suspected marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the barangay hall in the presence of a Barangay Bantay Bayan Desk Officer, as no elected official was available. The items tested positive for marijuana. The defense claimed accused-appellant was arbitrarily arrested inside his house and that evidence was planted. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted accused-appellant, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs under RA 9165.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision and acquitted accused-appellant. The Court found that the apprehending officers did not comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Specifically: (1) the marking of the seized items was improper, as they were marked only with the alias “Arnel” instead of the initials of the arresting officer and details of the seizure; (2) the inventory and photographing were not done immediately after seizure; and (3) the required witnesses—a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official—were not present during the inventory. Only a Barangay Bantay Bayan Desk Officer was present. The prosecution failed to offer any justifiable reason for these procedural lapses, which compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Consequently, the identity of the corpus delicti was not established beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.