G.R. No. 235469, October 02, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Abdullah Dalupang y Dimangadap, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Abdullah Dalupang was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs (violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165). The prosecution’s evidence established that on May 1, 2014, a buy-bust team from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) conducted an operation in Iligan City. Intelligence Officer 2 Rovel Pamisa acted as the poseur-buyer and purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from Dalupang inside his vehicle for a marked P500 bill. Upon the consummated sale, the team arrested Dalupang. A search of the vehicle’s compartment yielded three more plastic sachets in plain view. The team proceeded to Police Station 5, where an inventory of the seized items was conducted in the presence of a media representative (Lino Bacus) and an elected barangay official (Kagawad Dante Zamora), who signed the inventory sheet. The seized items were then submitted to the PDEA crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Dalupang, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction. Dalupang appealed, contending, among other issues, non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

ISSUE

Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, considering compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the CA Decision and ACQUITTED Abdullah Dalupang. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody due to non-compliance with the witness requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The law requires the inventory and photographing of seized drugs to be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. The prosecution failed to offer any justifiable reason for the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory. The presence of the three witnesses (the accused, media, and elected official) is intended to be a mandatory safeguard against planting, contamination, or loss of evidence. The prosecution’s failure to comply with this rule, without providing a credible explanation, compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Consequently, the accused’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.