G.R. No. 241602 , November 20, 2019
Romeo Asis y Briones, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

This case stemmed from an Information charging petitioner Romeo Asis y Briones with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . On February 18, 2009, operatives of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) implemented a search warrant at petitioner’s house. The search yielded a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. The PDEA operatives arrested petitioner and marked, inventoried, and photographed the seized item in the presence of petitioner, Barangay Chairman Ranilo Jerez, Sr., Barangay Kagawad Salvador Alvarez, and media representative Jonathan Magistrado of ABS-CBN Naga. The seized item was brought to the crime laboratory, where examination confirmed it to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Petitioner denied the charges, claiming the PDEA operatives forced their way into his house while he was sleeping and he did not see where the item was recovered. The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction despite a breach in the chain of custody procedure, specifically the absence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative during the inventory of the seized drugs.

RULING

The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted petitioner.
The Court ruled that in cases for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty, and the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody. The law requires the inventory and photography of seized items to be conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative, and specific witnesses. For cases prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 (the arrest here was in 2009), the required witnesses are a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official. The presence of these witnesses is crucial to ensure the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of evidence tampering.
In this case, the Certificate of Inventory and the testimonies of the PDEA operatives confirmed that the inventory was conducted without a DOJ representative, with only a media representative and elected public officials present. The prosecution failed to account for this absence by presenting a justifiable reason or showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted to secure the presence of a DOJ representative. This unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. Consequently, the evidence for the State was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.