G.R. No. 237116, November 12, 2018
DAMACEN GABRIEL CUNANAN A.K.A. “RYAN,” PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Police officers, armed with a search warrant, raided petitioner Damacen Cunanan’s residence. During the search, petitioner’s mother, Gwendolyn, entered the bedroom and emerged with a bundle she claimed was thrown under the bed by the team leader, SPO4 Balolong. This bundle contained ten plastic sachets of suspected shabu. Separately, officers found drug paraphernalia in a bedroom dresser and, inside petitioner’s vehicle, a larger plastic sachet of suspected shabu along with more paraphernalia. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. Petitioner was charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under Republic Act No. 9165.
At trial, petitioner denied the charges, asserting the evidence was planted. He highlighted the procedural lapses in the chain of custody, particularly that the inventory was not conducted at the place of seizure but on a table where all items from different locations were commingled. He also noted the absence of required witnesses—a representative from the Department of Justice and an elected public official—during the inventory and that the forensic chemist who examined the drugs was not presented in court.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs, thereby proving petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court acquitted petitioner due to the prosecution’s failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items, which compromised their identity and integrity. For a conviction under RA 9165, it is imperative that the identity of the corpus delicti is established with moral certainty. This requires every link in the chain of custody—from seizure, marking, inventory, laboratory examination, to presentation in court—to be duly accounted for. The Court found critical breaks in this chain.
First, the marking of the items was irregular. The ten sachets from the bedroom were allegedly marked by SPO4 Balolong, but the evidence showed they bore the markings of a different officer, SPO4 Ancheta, who was the evidence custodian. This creates doubt over when and by whom the crucial initial marking was done. Second, the inventory procedure was fatally defective. The law mandates the inventory to be conducted immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. Here, the inventory was not done at the specific places of seizure (the bedroom and the vehicle) but on a separate table after all items were gathered, commingling evidence from distinct sources. More importantly, no representative from the Department of Justice was present, and the elected official, the Barangay Chairman, was not shown to have witnessed the actual inventory. These unjustified deviations from the prescribed procedure eroded the evidentiary value of the seized items. Consequently, the integrity of the corpus delicti was not preserved, warranting petitioner’s acquittal.
