G.R. No. 241251, December 10, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SAMMY GLOBA Y COTURA, A.K.A. “JR” AND LOUIE ANADIA Y LUGARPO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

This is a Concurring Opinion by Justice Caguioa in a case involving accused-appellants Sammy Globa y Cotura and Louie Anadia y Lugarpo, who were convicted for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The ponencia acquitted the accused-appellants due to the prosecution’s failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody of the seized shabu, which placed its integrity in doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs (the corpus delicti) through strict compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

RULING

The Concurring Opinion agrees with the ponencia’s acquittal of the accused-appellants. The prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody, specifically by not complying with the witness requirement during the inventory of the seized drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation. The law requires the physical inventory and photographing to be done in the presence of the accused or their counsel, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. While the IRR allows the inventory to be conducted at the nearest police station or office if not practicable at the place of seizure, this does not dispense with the requirement that the three witnesses (media, DOJ, elected official) must be physically present at the time and at or near the place of apprehension to witness the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure. This presence is crucial to insulate against police practices like planting evidence. The apprehending officers in this case failed to justify their non-compliance with this requirement. Consequently, the integrity of the corpus delicti was compromised, creating reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. The saving clause for non-compliance cannot be invoked as the State failed to credibly explain the lapse. Therefore, the appeal is granted, and the Court of Appeals’ decision convicting the accused-appellants is reversed and set aside.