G.R. No. 237803 , November 27, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ALLAN ALON-ALON Y LIZARDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Allan Alon-Alon y Lizarda was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs). The prosecution’s version states that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on confidential information. During the operation, accused-appellant sold a plastic sachet of suspected shabu to a police poseur-buyer for PHP 300.00. The buy-bust team immediately marked the buy-bust money and the seized plastic sachet at the scene. However, the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were only conducted at the police station, in the presence of accused-appellant and a media representative. The seized item was later confirmed by forensic examination to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. The defense version claims accused-appellant was illegally arrested at his home, where police officers searched his house, found nothing, and brought him to the police station where he was forced to sign a document before being charged.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED accused-appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug, which is crucial to proving the corpus delicti of the offense. Specifically, the prosecution did not comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The physical inventory and photographing of the seized item were not done immediately at the place of arrest and seizure but only at the police station. Furthermore, the required witnesses were not present during the inventory: only accused-appellant and a media representative were present, while a representative from the Department of Justice and an elected public official were absent. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this non-compliance. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were compromised, creating reasonable doubt as to its identity. The failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody warranted acquittal.