G.R. No. 235468 July 1, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DAN DUMANJUG Y LOREÑA, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Dan Dumanjug was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on December 7, 2010, a buy-bust operation was conducted by PDEA agents in Butuan City. Agent Robin Tibayan, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased one sachet of shabu from Dumanjug for PHP 500.00. Upon consummation of the sale, Dumanjug was arrested. The seized item was marked at the scene and later subjected to laboratory examination, which confirmed it was methamphetamine hydrochloride. The prosecution presented evidence that an inventory and photography of the seized drug were conducted at the PDEA office in the presence of Dumanjug, a barangay kagawad, and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice.
Dumanjug denied the accusation, claiming he was framed. He testified that on the date in question, he was at his workplace, Butuan Goodyear Enterprises, Inc., and was merely summoned by a former co-worker to a boarding house where he was subsequently arrested. He asserted that the buy-bust operation did not occur and that the evidence against him was fabricated.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully proved Dumanjug’s guilt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti in light of the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Dumanjug. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, thereby creating reasonable doubt on the integrity of the seized drug as the corpus delicti of the crime. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty, requiring the prosecution to account for each link in the chain: seizure, marking, turnover, laboratory examination, and presentation in court. The arresting officers committed a critical deviation from the procedure in Section 21. While the inventory and photography were conducted at the PDEA office, the marking of the seized sachet was done at the arrest scene. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for not conducting the physical inventory and photographing immediately at the place of arrest, as required by law. The presence of the required witnesses (media, DOJ, elected official) only at the office, and not at the scene of seizure, constituted a gap in the chain. The Court ruled that the prosecution did not provide a credible explanation for this procedural lapse, nor did it prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the item were preserved. Consequently, the identity of the drug was compromised, warranting acquittal based on reasonable doubt.