G.R. No. 246550 . September 16, 2020
Ramil Cha y Azores, @ Obet, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ramil Cha y Azores was charged with violating Section 5 (Sale of Dangerous Drugs) of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted where a poseur-buyer purchased one sachet of marijuana from the petitioner. Upon arrest, a body search yielded additional sachets of marijuana and shabu. The inventory and photographing of the seized items were conducted at the barangay hall, not at the place of arrest, in the presence of representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ), media, and a barangay official.
The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming the petitioner was merely a bystander when he was forcibly taken by armed men, brought to a van, and later presented with planted evidence at the barangay hall. The Regional Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the sale of marijuana but acquitted him for possession of the other drugs. The Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drug, constituting the corpus delicti, amidst alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the appellate court’s decision and ACQUITTED the petitioner. The acquittal was anchored on the prosecution’s failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody, which compromised the integrity of the evidence. The Court emphasized that the procedure under Section 21 requires the presence of insulating witnesses—a representative from the DOJ, media, and an elected public official—during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. This presence is crucial to prevent planting, switching, or contamination of evidence.
In this case, the buy-bust team admittedly did not secure the presence of these witnesses at the time and place of the arrest and seizure. The witnesses were only called to the barangay hall after the operation. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this deviation from the mandated procedure. The Court ruled that this failure to comply with the witness requirement, absent any showing of a genuine and sufficient justification, created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the drug allegedly sold by the petitioner. Consequently, the corpus delicti of the crime was not established beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.