G.R. No. 234273 , September 18, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Emalyn N. Moreno, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed accusing Emalyn N. Moreno of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for selling one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.016 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer on July 12, 2012, in Calapan City. Upon arraignment, Moreno pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s evidence established that on July 11, 2012, PDEA Agent Marleo B. Sumale, acting on a tip, formed a buy-bust team where he was the poseur-buyer. At around midnight on July 12, at the WRJ Resto Bar, a woman identified as “Ara” (the accused) handed Agent Sumale a plastic sachet of suspected shabu. In exchange, Sumale gave her a marked P500 bill. Upon Sumale’s pre-arranged signal, the team arrested Moreno. The marked money was recovered from her. Agent Sumale marked the seized sachet at the scene. The team then proceeded to the PDEA office where an inventory was conducted. The sachet was later submitted for laboratory examination, which confirmed the substance was shabu.
The defense interposed denial and frame-up. Moreno claimed that on the evening of July 11, while returning to work via tricycle, a group forced her to alight, asked if she was “for hire,” forced her into their vehicle, brought her to the PDEA office, later took her back to the location for pictures, and then detained her.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Moreno, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. Moreno appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC and the CA erred in convicting Moreno of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and reversed the decisions of the lower courts. Moreno was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drug, in strict compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 .
The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the State must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the integrity of the corpus delicti through strict adherence to the chain of custody rule. Section 21 requires that immediately after seizure, a physical inventory and photographing of the drugs be conducted in the presence of the accused or her counsel, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official, all of whom shall sign the inventory.
The Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with these witness requirements. The records did not show that an elected public official, a media representative, or a DOJ representative were present during the inventory. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this omission. The mere marking of the item at the scene and the subsequent inventory at the PDEA office, absent the required witnesses, did not constitute substantial compliance. The apprehending team did not even attempt to secure their presence, which was imperative as the buy-bust operation was a planned activity. The failure to establish a credible chain of custody, coupled with the lack of convincing justification for non-compliance, created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized drug. Consequently, Moreno’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.