G.R. No. 237809, January 14, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Rosalina Aure y Almazan and Gina Maravilla y Agnes, Accused-Appellants

FACTS

This case stemmed from an Information charging accused-appellants with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on January 15, 2014, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the DAID-SOTG of the Quezon City Police District. During the operation, one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance was recovered from accused-appellants. The sachet was marked at the place of arrest. The team, together with accused-appellants, then proceeded to the DAID-SOTG headquarters where the seized item was inventoried and photographed in the presence of a media representative. The item was later examined and found to contain 4.75 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. In their defense, accused-appellants denied the charges, claiming they were arbitrarily seized and brought to Camp Karingal where a ransom was demanded, and the case was filed when they could not pay. They also claimed they only saw each other for the first time at Camp Karingal and only saw the alleged seized plastic sachet during trial. The Regional Trial Court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The CA held that the prosecution proved the crime through the testimony of a back-up officer, PO3 Salonga, despite the absence of the poseur-buyer’s testimony, and that there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, even though the inventory was conducted without a Department of Justice representative and an elected public official.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellants’ conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs despite lapses in the chain of custody, particularly the absence of required witnesses during the inventory of the seized item.

RULING

The appeal is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed the CA Decision and acquitted accused-appellants. In cases for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty, requiring strict accounting of each link in the chain of custody. The law mandates that the inventory and photography of seized items be conducted immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused or his/her representative, and the required witnesses: a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official (for cases prior to the amendment by RA 10640). The presence of these witnesses is crucial to ensure the chain of custody and remove suspicion of evidence switching, planting, or contamination. While non-compliance may be excused under justifiable grounds provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, the prosecution must prove such justifiable grounds as a fact and explain the procedural lapses. In this case, the Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property revealed that the inventory was conducted only in the presence of a media representative, without a DOJ representative and an elected public official. When asked about this deviation, the prosecution witness, PO3 Salonga, merely stated they tried to contact the other required witnesses but they were not available, without providing details on the genuine and sufficient efforts exerted to secure their presence. The prosecution failed to offer any justifiable ground for this non-compliance. Mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. The prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody warranted acquittal on reasonable doubt.