G.R. No. 240541 , January 21, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. REY BARRION y SILVA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

This is an appeal from a conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on August 10, 2011, a buy-bust operation was successfully implemented against accused-appellant Rey Barrion y Silva, resulting in the recovery of one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Dan Gonzales marked the seized item at the place of arrest and later at the police station. An inventory was conducted at the police station in the presence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, Rodel Limbo, and an elected barangay councilor, Teresita N. Reyes. The seized item tested positive for 0.04 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Barrion denied the charges, claiming he was already detained at the police headquarters at the time of the alleged buy-bust and that he was arrested earlier that afternoon under different circumstances. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti (the seized dangerous drug) with moral certainty through strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure, particularly the witness requirement during the inventory.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Rey Barrion y Silva. The appeal was meritorious.
The Court ruled that in drug cases, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty, requiring an unbroken chain of custody. A critical part of this procedure is the conduct of inventory and photography immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused or his representative and specific witnesses. For cases prior to the amendment by R.A. 10640, the required witnesses are a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
In this case, there was a deviation from this witness requirement. The Inventory of Confiscated/Seized Items and the testimony of the team leader, SPO1 Emmanuel Angelo Umali, confirmed that only a DOJ representative and an elected barangay councilor were present. There was no media representative. The prosecution failed to offer any justification for this lapse. The Court emphasized that mere statements of unavailability, without proof of genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, are unacceptable. The apprehending officers had sufficient time to prepare for the buy-bust operation and make necessary arrangements to ensure compliance. Since the prosecution did not account for this procedural lapse or prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were nonetheless preserved, the chain of custody was compromised. Consequently, the identity of the corpus delicti was not established with moral certainty, warranting acquittal.