G.R. No. 237352 . October 15, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. MARICAR ISLA Y UMALI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

This case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted against accused-appellant Maricar Isla for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The prosecution alleged that on November 28, 2010, police officers recovered a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from Isla. The seized item was later marked, photographed, and inventoried at the police station in the presence of Isla and a radio reporter. Forensic examination confirmed the substance to be 0.04 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Isla denied the accusation, claiming she was forcibly taken from her home and later framed after she could not pay an alleged extortion demand from the police.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Isla of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling that the elements of the crime were established and there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule despite noted lapses. Isla appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing for her acquittal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Isla’s conviction despite alleged breaches in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted Isla. 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 through an unbroken chain of custody. A critical link in this chain is the conduct of the physical inventory and photography of the seized items immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses under the law.
At the time of the buy-bust operation, the law mandated the presence of three witnesses: a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The records showed that only a media representative was present during the inventory. The prosecution offered no justification for the absence of the other two mandatory witnesses. The police officers did not testify that they attempted to secure the presence of a DOJ representative or an elected official, nor did they provide any explanation for this failure. Mere statements of unavailability, without proof of genuine and earnest efforts to secure the required witnesses, are insufficient to justify non-compliance.
The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove a justifiable ground for this procedural lapse. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were compromised. The saving clause under the law, which excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds provided the integrity of the evidence is preserved, cannot be invoked. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. With the chain of custody broken and the integrity of the evidence not established beyond reasonable doubt, Isla’s acquittal was warranted.