G.R. No. 238338. October 01, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. EDGARDO DELA ROSA Y EMPAMANO @ “BOY,” CRISELDA HUERTO Y DOCOT @ “CECIL,” AND RONALDO HUERTO Y DOCOT, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellants Edgardo Dela Rosa, Criselda Huerto, and Ronaldo Huerto for selling and possessing shabu. PO1 Jojo Valdez acted as the poseur-buyer and purchased a sachet from Edgardo. Upon arrest, four more sachets were found on Edgardo. The seized items were marked, photographed, and inventoried at the barangay hall in the presence of Barangay Captain Benhur Cruz. Forensic examination confirmed the sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court convicted all three for illegal sale under Section 5 of RA 9165 and Edgardo separately for illegal possession under Section 11. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that while there was non-compliance with the witness requirement under Section 21, the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
The defense presented a frame-up, claiming they were arbitrarily arrested from a bingo boutique a day prior to the reported buy-bust. They alleged the police showed them the drugs only after days of detention and coerced a confession. The core issue on appeal centered on the preservation of the chain of custody, specifically the absence of the mandatory witnesses—a representative from the Department of Justice and the media—during the inventory and photography of the seized drugs, as required by law at the time of the offense.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and acquitted all accused-appellants. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through a strict accounting of each link in the chain of custody. A critical link is the inventory and photography immediately after seizure, which under Section 21 of RA 9165, prior to its amendment, required the presence of the accused or his counsel, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The presence of these witnesses is a substantive legal requirement designed to insulate the proceedings from any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.
Here, the prosecution admitted that only an elected barangay official was present during the inventory. The required representatives from the DOJ and the media were absent. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this deviation from the mandated procedure. It did not even attempt to explain the absence of these witnesses or demonstrate earnest efforts to secure their presence. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish the crucial first link in the chain of custody. This failure compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items from the very outset. Without proof that the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from the accused, their guilt cannot be sustained beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s failure to comply with the chain of custody rule.