G.R. No. 238594 , November 05, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Joey Reyes y Lagman, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

This case stemmed from two Informations charging Joey Reyes with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was successfully conducted against Reyes on December 20, 2012. During the operation, one plastic sachet of shabu was sold to a poseur-buyer, and a search incidental to arrest yielded eight more sachets. The items were marked at the place of arrest. The team then proceeded to their headquarters where an inventory and photography were conducted in the presence of a media representative. Forensic examination confirmed the sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Reyes presented a different version, claiming he was merely loitering when police arrested a different suspect. He alleged he was subsequently apprehended and forced to admit ownership of the drugs seized from that other person. The Regional Trial Court convicted Reyes, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Both courts found the prosecution established the elements of the crimes and substantially complied with the chain of custody rule.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Reyes’ conviction despite alleged lapses in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Joey Reyes. The appeal was meritorious due to a fatal lapse in the chain of custody procedure that compromised the integrity of the seized drugs. In drug cases, the identity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty, requiring strict adherence to the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 . This mandates that the inventory and photography of seized items be conducted immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused and specific witnesses: a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice, AND any elected public official (as the law stood prior to its amendment by R.A. 10640).
Here, the prosecution admitted that only a media representative was present during the inventory. There was no representative from the DOJ, and no elected public official was present. The prosecution offered no explanation for this deviation from the mandatory witness requirement. The Court emphasized that the presence of all three witnesses is crucial to insulate the proceedings from any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. The saving clause, which excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds, does not apply when the prosecution fails to acknowledge the lapse and provide a credible explanation for it. The unjustified absence of required witnesses created reasonable doubt on whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from Reyes. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were not preserved, warranting acquittal.