GR 239903; (September, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 239903, September 11, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Ronaldo Salenga y Gonzales a.k.a. “Barok,” Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Two Informations were filed against accused-appellant Ronaldo Salenga y Gonzales for violation of Sections 5 (Sale) and 11 (Possession) of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on August 29, 2011, in Taguig City, where appellant was alleged to have sold 0.04 gram of shabu to a poseur-buyer, PO2 Gerald R. Lagos, and was found in possession of an additional 0.08 gram upon arrest. The prosecution evidence established that after the transaction, PO2 Lagos marked the seized plastic sachets at the scene, conducted an inventory at the police station in the presence of appellant, an investigator, a team leader, and a media representative, and subsequently turned over the items to the crime laboratory for examination, which yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was framed and that the police failed to comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, particularly the presence of required witnesses during the inventory. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Ronaldo Salenga y Gonzales.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, which is crucial in proving the corpus delicti of the offenses. The buy-bust team committed unjustified deviations from the procedure mandated under Section 21 of RA 9165. Specifically, the inventory of the seized items was conducted only in the presence of a media representative, without the required elected public official and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ). The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this absence. The Court emphasized that while the presence of all three witnesses is not always mandatory, their absence must be justified based on recognized exceptions, such as the witnesses’ unavailability despite earnest efforts, threats to their safety, or the remoteness of the arrest site. No such justification was presented. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of testimony from the media representative who signed the inventory, which could have attested to the integrity of the seized items. The police also failed to provide a physical description of the seized drugs in their affidavits and did not immediately mark the items at the place of arrest, as required. These lapses, taken together, created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.