GR 241254; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 241254 , July 8, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Armie Narvas y Bolasoc, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Armie Narvas y Bolasoc was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution’s version states that on March 2, 2011, based on a tip, a buy-bust team was formed with PO2 Christopher Idos as poseur-buyer and PO1 Angelo Quibrantos as back-up. In Villa subdivision, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan, Narvas allegedly handed two plastic sachets of shabu to PO2 Idos in exchange for marked money. Upon arrest, a search yielded two more plastic sachets. An inventory was conducted by SPO1 Raymundo Bauzon, photographs were taken, and the items were marked. The seized items were submitted to the crime laboratory and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense presented a different version, claiming Narvas was at a friend’s house for a birthday celebration when police officers barged in, arrested them without finding anything, but then planted six plastic sachets and marked money. He also alleged he was tortured.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erred in convicting accused-appellant Narvas for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Armie Narvas y Bolasoc. The prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to non-compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The apprehending officers did not conduct the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the required witnesses—an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice, and a representative from the media. The testimonies of the police officers confirmed the absence of these witnesses during the inventory. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this procedural lapse. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were therefore compromised, creating reasonable doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones allegedly seized from the accused. The presumption of innocence prevails.