G.R. No. 246193, February 19, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ma. Floriza Fulgado y Colas @ “Thane,” Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ma. Floriza Fulgado, together with co-accused Edlyn Tamayo, was charged with violations of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on February 11, 2015, in Cardona, Rizal. A confidential informant tipped off police that Tamayo and Fulgado were dealing drugs. A buy-bust team was formed, with PO2 John Rossmund Cruz as poseur-buyer. At the location, PO2 Cruz approached Tamayo. Fulgado replied affirmatively when asked if drugs were available. PO2 Cruz gave marked money to Fulgado, and Tamayo handed him a plastic sachet of shabu. Upon the pre-arranged signal, arrests were made. From Tamayo, two additional sachets were seized. From Fulgado, one plastic sachet was recovered. The seized items were marked at the scene. An inventory was conducted at the police station in the presence of a Barangay Kagawad. The items were then submitted to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court found Fulgado and Tamayo guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Fulgado appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the integrity of the corpus delicti was compromised due to irregularities in the buy-bust operation, marking, and inventory.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165, particularly in preserving the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, thereby compromising the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The apprehending officers did not strictly comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. The inventory of the seized drugs was conducted only in the presence of a Barangay Kagawad. The required witnesses—a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official—were not present. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this deviation from the prescribed procedure. The Court emphasized that while strict compliance may be excused under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must prove such grounds. Here, the prosecution failed to explain the absence of the required witnesses. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were not preserved, creating reasonable doubt as to Fulgado’s guilt. The Court acquitted Ma. Floriza Fulgado on the ground of reasonable doubt and ordered her immediate release from detention.