G.R. No. 234151. December 05, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CESAR DELA CRUZ Y LIBONAO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on June 6, 2010, a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellant Cesar Dela Cruz in Aparri, Cagayan, based on information from a confidential informant. IO2 Vivien A. Molina acted as the poseur-buyer and was provided with two marked PHP500 bills. The team, along with the informant, proceeded to the target area where the informant introduced IO2 Molina to Dela Cruz. After a brief conversation where Molina stated she wanted to buy PHP1,000 worth of shabu, Dela Cruz retrieved a small plastic sachet from his residence and handed it to her. Molina then gave him the marked money as payment. Upon confirming the substance, Molina gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to Dela Cruz’s arrest and the recovery of the buy-bust money from his person.
The seized plastic sachet was marked and an inventory was conducted at the police station in the presence of two barangay officials. The item was then submitted to the crime laboratory, where examination confirmed it contained 0.02 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Dela Cruz denied the charges, claiming he was merely resting outside his house when he was suddenly apprehended by armed men who planted the evidence. Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found him guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody rule.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused-appellant. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty, and this requires an unbroken chain of custody. The law mandates that the inventory and photographing of seized items be done immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The prosecution failed to prove compliance with these witness requirements. The inventory was witnessed only by two barangay officials. No representative from the media or the DOJ was present, and the prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this deviation. The arresting officers’ bare claim that they tried but failed to contact such representatives was insufficient. This lapse created reasonable doubt on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, which is fatal to the prosecution’s case. The presumption of innocence prevails, and the failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt warrants acquittal.