GR 242165; (September, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 242165 , September 11, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Abubacar Abdulwahab y Mama, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
An Information was filed against Abubacar Abdulwahab y Mama (appellant) for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs). The prosecution alleged that on July 9, 2014, in Caloocan City, a buy-bust operation was conducted where PO2 Wilfredo N. Leonor, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased from appellant one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.62 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) for P4,000.00. After the transaction, appellant was arrested. PO2 Leonor marked the seized sachet at the scene and later conducted an inventory. The specimen tested positive for shabu. The defense claimed the buy-bust was a frame-up, alleging appellant was illegally arrested in Manila on July 8, 2014, and that the evidence was planted. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted appellant, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution established the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug through strict compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the appeal, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA Decision, and ACQUITTED appellant Abubacar Abdulwahab y Mama on reasonable doubt.
The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. Compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, which requires the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs to be done immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official, is a matter of substantive law. The apprehending officers did not comply with these witness requirements. The testimony of PO2 Leonor confirmed that no representative from the media, the DOJ, or any elected public official was present during the inventory. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this non-compliance and failed to prove any genuine effort to secure the presence of these required witnesses. This failure, without justifiable grounds, created reasonable doubt as to the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.