G.R. No. 245486 , November 27, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Ronald Jaime De Motor y Dantes and Lyniel Torino y Ramos, Accused; Ronald Jaime De Motor y Dantes, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

This case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Lipa City Police on August 13, 2012, based on information from a civilian asset. At a Jollibee branch, accused-appellant Ronald Jaime De Motor y Dantes was allegedly caught selling five sachets of marijuana to a poseur-buyer. Upon frisking, four more sachets were found in his pocket. The police officers marked a total of nine sachets at the scene. The inventory and photography of the seized items were later conducted at the police station in the presence of the accused, the Barangay Captain, and a media representative. The items tested positive for marijuana. The accused denied the charges, claiming he was arbitrarily seized by police without cause while inside the Jollibee.
The Regional Trial Court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling that the chain of custody was substantially complied with and that inconsistencies in prosecution testimonies were minor. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing non-compliance with the chain of custody rule, specifically the absence of a Department of Justice representative during inventory.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs with moral certainty, given the alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused-appellant. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through an unbroken 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: a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice, and any elected public official, as the crime occurred prior to the amendment by RA 10640.
Here, the prosecution admitted that no DOJ representative was present during the inventory. The presence of a media representative and a barangay official did not satisfy the mandatory witness requirement. The prosecution failed to offer any justifiable ground for this deviation. The Court stressed that the mandatory witness requirement is a crucial safeguard against police abuses like planting or switching evidence. Non-compliance, without a valid reason, impairs the integrity of the seized items. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody, creating reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were not preserved, warranting acquittal.