GR 237803; (November, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 237803 , November 27, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ALLAN ALON-ALON Y LIZARDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
Acting on a confidential information, a police team conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant Allan Alon-Alon y Lizarda for alleged illegal drug trade in San Pedro, Laguna. During the operation, accused-appellant sold a plastic sachet of suspected shabu to a poseur-buyer for Php 300.00. Upon arrest, the buy-bust team immediately marked the buy-bust money and the seized plastic sachet. 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 examined and found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Accused-appellant denied the allegations, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested at his home and brought to the police station where he was forced to sign a document. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 , sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC judgment with modification, making him ineligible for parole.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED accused-appellant.
The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug, which is crucial to proving the corpus delicti. Specifically, the police officers did not comply with the mandatory requirements of 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 inventory was not conducted in the presence of all required witnesses: only accused-appellant and a media representative were present. There was no representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and no elected public official. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground for this non-compliance, nor did it demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were nonetheless preserved. This failure to follow the prescribed procedure and to account for the deviation created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal.