G.R. No. 243633 , July 15, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Helenmie P. Abueva, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Helenmie P. Abueva was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs). The prosecution alleged that on July 9, 2015, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Parañaque City where SPO2 Fercival Españo, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased from Abueva one plastic sachet containing 0.09 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) for PHP 300.00. After the transaction, Abueva was apprehended. The seized drug was marked at the place of arrest. The buy-bust team proceeded to the barangay hall to secure the presence of a DOJ representative and an elected public official for the inventory, but after 30 minutes of unsuccessful efforts, they brought Abueva to their office where the inventory and photography were conducted in the presence of Abueva and a media representative only. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Abueva guilty and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drug, thereby proving the corpus delicti and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA Decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Helenmie P. Abueva on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory witness requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, for the custody and disposition of seized drugs. The law requires the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items to be conducted in the presence of the accused or her representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. In this case, only a media representative was present during the inventory at the police station. The apprehending officers’ attempt to secure a DOJ representative and an elected official at the barangay hall for 30 minutes was deemed insufficient to constitute earnest effort, especially since they did not state the specific steps taken to contact these witnesses. The absence of these required witnesses without a justifiable ground, and the prosecution’s failure to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved, breached the chain of custody. This failure compromised the identity of the corpus delicti and warranted acquittal.