G.R. No. 238971 , August 28, 2019
Charben Duarte y Oliveros, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Police officers responded to a reported shooting and found petitioner Charben Duarte wounded. They observed a firearm tucked in his waist and, upon his failure to present authority for it, arrested him. A search incidental to arrest yielded a sling bag containing, among other items, a plastic sachet of white crystalline substance and drug paraphernalia. The items were marked, and an inventory was later conducted at the police station in the presence of a barangay kagawad and Duarte. Laboratory examination confirmed the substance was shabu. Duarte was convicted for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling the arrest and search were valid and chain of custody was substantially complied with despite the absence of Department of Justice and media representatives during inventory.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drug with moral certainty, complying with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Duarte. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, compromising the identity and integrity of the seized drug, which is the corpus delicti of the crime. While marking at the police station is permissible, the law mandates the physical inventory and photography be conducted immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused or his representative, and required witnesses: an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service and the media. The prosecution admitted only a barangay kagawad was present. The absence of the other two required witnesses was unjustified. The prosecution did not offer any explanation for this deviation, nor did it demonstrate earnest efforts to secure their presence. The saving clause allowing non-compliance under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity of the evidence is preserved, cannot be invoked absent any showing of such justifiable grounds. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were compromised. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.