G.R. No. 238339. August 07, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOMAR CASTILLO Y MARANAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted against Jomar Castillo based on a tip. A police asset, acting as poseur-buyer, successfully purchased a sachet of shabu from Castillo using marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, police officers arrested Castillo and recovered the buy-bust item and four additional sachets from his possession. The seized items were marked at the scene. The inventory and photographing were later conducted at the police station in the presence of a Department of Justice representative, a barangay official, and the accused.
Castillo presented a different version, claiming he was merely waiting to play basketball when police officers, who had previously arrested him in another case, apprehended him without any buy-bust transaction. He alleged he was forced to point to drugs during a staged photograph at the station.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs with moral certainty, considering the alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

RULING

No. The appeal was granted, and Castillo was acquitted. The Court emphasized that the presence of the required witnesses—an elected public official, a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media, and the accused or his counsel—during the physical inventory and photographing is crucial to the chain of custody. This procedure is designed to insulate the seizure from any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination. The law mandates that the inventory be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation, which necessarily means the witnesses must be present at the time of, or at least proximate to, the apprehension to ensure they can witness the integrity of the seized items from that point.
Here, the prosecution admitted that the required witnesses were not present during the actual seizure and marking at the place of arrest. They were only summoned to the police station afterwards. The prosecution failed to offer any justifiable ground for this deviation from the mandated procedure. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were compromised. Without the insulating presence of the witnesses at the critical initial stage, the possibility of tampering could not be ruled out. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty could not prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused when the procedure safeguarding the evidence was not observed. The broken chain of custody warranted acquittal on reasonable doubt.