G.R. No. 238299 , July 1, 2019
EMMANUELITO LIMBO y PAGUIO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FACTS

This case stemmed from an Information accusing petitioner Emmanuelito Limbo of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on August 30, 2010, police officers, acting on a tip, saw petitioner holding two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance while talking to an unidentified person in Muntinlupa City. Petitioner was immediately arrested, and the sachets were seized. The arresting officers brought petitioner to their office. They allegedly placed calls to representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and local elected officials to witness the inventory, but after waiting for about two hours with no one arriving, they proceeded with the inventory and photography in the presence of a local government employee, Ely Diang. The seized items were later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Petitioner denied the charges, claiming he was framed and that the police officers showed him the sachets after accosting him. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs despite the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, particularly its deviation from the witness requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

RULING

The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and acquitted petitioner. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty, requiring an unbroken chain of custody. As part of this procedure, the law mandates that the inventory and photography of seized items be conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative, and specific witnesses: a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official (under RA 9165 prior to its amendment). The presence of these witnesses is crucial to remove any suspicion of evidence switching, planting, or contamination. In this case, the prosecution admitted that the inventory was not witnessed by the required representatives from the media, the DOJ, or an elected official, but only by a local government employee. The arresting officer’s explanation—that they called the required witnesses and waited for two hours but no one came—was deemed insufficient to justify the deviation. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove that the police exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses. Mere claims of unavailability, without demonstrating actual serious attempts to contact them, do not constitute a justifiable ground for non-compliance. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised, warranting petitioner’s acquittal on reasonable doubt.