G.R. No. 235980 August 20, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JOSEPH PONTIJOS LIBRE @ “JOY JOY” and LEONILA PUEBLAS LIBRE @ “INDAY NILAY,”, Accused-Appellants

FACTS

This case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Regional Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operations Task Group 7 (RAIDSOTG-7) in Cebu City on June 6, 2012. A confidential informant reported that accused-appellants Leonila and Joseph Libre were engaged in selling shabu. A police officer acted as poseur-buyer and met with the appellants, agreeing to purchase 25 grams of shabu for ₱100,000. During the transaction, Joseph handed over a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance to the poseur-buyer, who then gave the marked money to Leonila. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the backup team arrested the appellants. The seized item was marked, inventoried at the scene in the presence of a barangay councilor and a media representative, and photographed. Subsequent laboratory examination confirmed the substance to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The appellants denied the charges, claiming they were arbitrarily apprehended at a mall, blindfolded, brought to different locations for interrogation, and forced to sign documents. They alleged the evidence was planted. The Regional Trial Court found them guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 , a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Leonila appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the seized drug due to procedural lapses in the chain of custody.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Leonila Libre for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite alleged breaches in the chain of custody of the seized item.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted accused-appellant Leonila Libre. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. This requires an unbroken chain of custody under Section 21 of RA 9165. The law mandates that immediately after seizure, a physical inventory and photographing of the drugs be conducted in the presence of the accused or their representative, an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media.
The Court found a fatal procedural gap. While the inventory was witnessed by a barangay councilor and a media representative, the prosecution failed to establish that the presence of the accused or her counsel was secured during this critical stage. The records were silent on whether Leonila was present at the inventory or if she was afforded the opportunity to witness it. This constitutes a clear deviation from the mandatory witness requirement, which is designed to insulate the proceedings from any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground for this non-compliance. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized substance were compromised, creating reasonable doubt as to its identity as the very item allegedly sold. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence when the procedure safeguarding the evidence’s integrity has been breached.