G.R. No. 244256 , November 25, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Joseph Sta. Cruz y Ilusorio, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Joseph Sta. Cruz y Ilusorio was charged with illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Criminal Case No. 10-1979-MN) and illegal sale of shabu under Section 5 of the same Act (Criminal Case No. 10-1980-MN). The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on November 5, 2010, in Malabon City. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimony of PO2 Herbert Bagain, Jr., the poseur-buyer, stated that after a confidential informant reported accused-appellant’s drug activities, a team was formed. PO2 Bagain successfully bought a sachet of shabu from accused-appellant for PHP 500.00. Upon arrest, two more sachets were found on accused-appellant. The seized items were marked, inventoried at the police station in the presence of a media representative, and later confirmed by forensic examination to be shabu. The defense claimed accused-appellant was merely watching a mahjong game when he was forcibly apprehended without cause. The Regional Trial Court found accused-appellant guilty on both charges, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Accused-appellant appealed, arguing non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 .

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, in strict compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 , to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals’ Decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Joseph Sta. Cruz y Ilusorio on reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody due to the apprehending officers’ unjustified non-compliance with the mandatory witness requirement under Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 . The law requires the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs to be conducted 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. The prosecution only established the presence of a media representative during the inventory at the police station. There was no showing of the presence of a DOJ representative or an elected public official, nor any explanation offered for their absence. The Court emphasized that the procedure is a matter of substantive law, especially critical when the seized drugs are of miniscule amounts easily susceptible to planting or tampering. The failure to comply, without justifiable reason, compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal.