G.R. No. 241081 , February 11, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Bernido Acabo y Ayento, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The prosecution alleged that accused-appellant Bernido Acabo was arrested in a buy-bust operation on September 12, 2009, where two plastic sachets of white crystalline substance were recovered. The inventory at the police station was witnessed by two barangay kagawads and a PDEA representative. A media representative later signed the inventory documents at the Provincial Police Office. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was 0.08 gram of shabu. Acabo denied the charges, claiming he was framed after a prior conflict with a police officer, and asserted he was merely apprehended on the road without any buy-bust taking place.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Acabo of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 , sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecution established all elements of the crime and preserved the integrity of the seized items. Acabo appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Acabo due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity of the corpus delicti must be proven with moral certainty by accounting for each link in the chain from seizure to presentation in court. A critical requirement is the conduct of inventory and photography immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused and specific witnesses: a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official, as mandated by RA 9165 prior to its amendment.
Here, the inventory was not witnessed by all required insulating witnesses at the same time. While two elected officials and a PDEA agent were present at the police station, the media representative signed the inventory only later at a different office, the Bohol Provincial Police Office. This constituted a deviation from the witness requirement designed to prevent evidence tampering. The prosecution offered no justifiable ground for this procedural lapse and failed to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were nonetheless preserved. Consequently, the identity of the corpus delicti was compromised, creating reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence prevails, warranting acquittal.