G.R. No. 241135 , October 14, 2019
JAKE MESA Y SAN JUAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The petitioner, Jake Mesa y San Juan, was charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The Information alleged that on November 25, 2012, in Binangonan, Rizal, he was found in possession of 0.05 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”). The prosecution’s version stated that police officers, acting on a tip from a confidential informant about a certain “Sapyot” selling drugs, went to the area. They observed Sapyot hand a plastic sachet to the petitioner. When firecrackers exploded, alerting the suspects, Sapyot escaped but the petitioner was apprehended. The police ordered him to empty his pockets, revealing a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO1 Rommel Bilog marked the sachet with “JAK,” conducted an inventory witnessed by a media representative, Cesar Barquilla, and brought the petitioner and the item to the police station. The item tested positive for shabu. The defense version claimed the petitioner was merely at a neighbor’s house to care for fighting cocks when police, after failing to catch Sapyot, accosted him instead. He denied possession of any illegal drug and alleged he was handcuffed and forced to hold a gun at the station. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 13 years imprisonment and a fine of P300,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The petitioner assailed the decision, arguing the confiscated drugs were inadmissible as fruit of a poisonous tree, there were irregularities in marking and inventory, and the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave error in affirming the petitioner’s conviction for violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted the petitioner. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs and did not comply with the procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 . The apprehending officers did not conduct the physical inventory and photograph of the seized item in the presence of the required witnesses—an elected public official and a representative from the National Prosecution Service OR the media. The prosecution only presented a media representative, Cesar Barquilla, and failed to offer any justifiable ground for the absence of an elected public official. The Court emphasized that the presence of these witnesses is crucial to prevent planting, switching, or contamination of evidence. The prosecution’s failure to provide a reason for non-compliance, and its failure to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved, warranted the petitioner’s acquittal. The presumption of innocence must prevail when the prosecution does not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.