G.R. No. 238519 , June 26, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DESIREE DELA TORRE Y ARBILLON, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Desiree Dela Torre y Arbillon was charged with violations of Sections 5 (sale) and 11 (possession) of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) following a buy-bust operation in Makati City on March 14, 2015. PO1 Mauro Pagulayan acted as the poseur-buyer and purchased a sachet of shabu from the appellant, alias “Zandra,” using a marked ₱1,000 bill. Upon the consummation of the sale, the appellant was arrested, and two additional sachets were recovered from her person. The seized items were later marked and inventoried at the barangay hall in the presence of a Barangay Kagawad, and subsequent laboratory examination confirmed the substances to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, particularly in complying with the witness requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt by establishing the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs through a compliant chain of custody.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted the appellant. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty, and this requires an unbroken chain of custody. The law mandates that the inventory and photographing of seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or her representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official, who shall sign the inventory.
The Court found that the buy-bust team committed significant procedural lapses. While an elected barangay official was present during the inventory, the prosecution failed to secure the presence of the required witnesses from the media and the Department of Justice. The prosecution also did not offer any justifiable ground for this non-compliance. The Court stressed that the presence of these insulating witnesses is crucial to prevent planting, switching, or contamination of evidence, especially in cases involving miniscule quantities of drugs. The failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure, without a valid reason, compromised the integrity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.