GR 246999; (July, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 246999 , July 28, 2020
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Marvin Balbarez y Hernandez, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Marvin Balbarez was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. A buy-bust operation was conducted against him based on reports of drug selling. During the operation, a poseur-buyer purchased a sachet from Balbarez, who was then arrested. A search incident to arrest yielded two more plastic sachets. The seized items were marked at the scene, photographed at the police station, and later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Balbarez of both charges. The Court of Appeals (CA) acquitted him of illegal sale but affirmed his conviction for illegal possession. Balbarez appealed the CA’s affirmation of his conviction for illegal possession.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, thereby proving the corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Marvin Balbarez. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, which compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. The buy-bust team committed significant procedural lapses under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Specifically, the required insulating witnesses (a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official) were not present during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. The prosecution failed to allege and prove justifiable grounds for this non-compliance or that earnest efforts were made to secure their presence. Furthermore, the links in the chain of custody were not established with certainty, particularly the turnover from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist. The testimony of the forensic chemist and the stipulation of the parties were insufficient to prove the required precautionary steps in handling the evidence. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the seized drugs were not preserved, warranting acquittal. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed and set aside.