G.R. No. 238589 June 26, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ALLEN BAHOYO Y DELA TORRE, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Allen Bahoyo was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that on July 17, 2016, a buy-bust operation in Makati City resulted in Bahoyo selling one sachet of shabu to a poseur-buyer for PHP 500.00. Upon arrest, three more sachets were seized from him. The police conducted an inventory and took photographs at the police station in the presence of Bahoyo and a media representative. The seized items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court convicted Bahoyo, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Bahoyo denied the accusations, claiming he was merely a curious bystander who was forcibly taken by armed men after witnessing a commotion. He asserted that the drugs were planted and that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items due to deviations from the chain of custody protocol under Republic Act No. 9165 .

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs, thereby proving Bahoyo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 .

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted Bahoyo. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the State must prove not just the elements of the crimes but also the identity of the corpus delicti with moral certainty. This requires an unbroken chain of custody, ensuring the seized items presented in court are the very same items confiscated from the accused. The law mandates that the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation, in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
Here, the police committed a fatal procedural lapse. The inventory and photographing were not done at the place of arrest but later at the police station. Crucially, the required witnesses were not present during the actual seizure. Only a media representative was present at the station for the inventory, and there was no elected public official or DOJ representative. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for these deviations. The absence of the insulating witnesses at the time of seizure and during the initial custody stages compromised the integrity of the evidence from the very beginning. This failure to comply with the mandatory procedure, without any explanation, created reasonable doubt on whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones allegedly taken from Bahoyo. Consequently, his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.