GR 242827; (September, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 242827 , September 09, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Rosemarie Gabunada y Talisic, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
This case stemmed from two Informations accusing Rosemarie Gabunada of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on March 19, 2016, policemen conducted a buy-bust operation against Gabunada, recovering one plastic sachet from the sale and four more during a search incidental to her arrest. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of Gabunada and Barangay Kagawad Leonardo Sinque. The items tested positive for shabu. In her defense, Gabunada claimed she was arbitrarily arrested in SM Bicutan on March 18, 2016, and was only brought to Balintawak the next morning where she saw a barangay kagawad sign an inventory; she refused to sign. She first saw the alleged evidence upon returning to Camp Caringal. The Regional Trial Court found her guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs with moral certainty through strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted the accused-appellant. The Court found a breach in the chain of custody that compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. While the Inventory of Seized Items contained the signature of a media representative, Ernie Dela Cruz, his testimony revealed he was not present during the actual inventory and photography on March 19, 2016. He signed the document two days later in his office, and the document was undated and lacked location details when he signed it. This failure to have the required witnesses—specifically, a media representative—present during the physical inventory and photography constituted a substantive gap in the chain of custody. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground for this non-compliance or prove that the apprehending officers exerted genuine efforts to secure the witness’s presence at the time of inventory. Consequently, the identity of the corpus delicti was not established with moral certainty, warranting acquittal.