G.R. No. 247522 . February 28, 2022.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ZORAIDA MARIANO A.K.A. NORA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

On August 6, 2011, a buy-bust team was formed after a confidential informant reported the illegal drug activities of accused-appellant Zoraida Mariano a.k.a. Nora. PO3 Lendro Tutor acted as poseur-buyer. At the target area in front of NCCC Supermarket in Davao City, the informant introduced PO3 Tutor to Nora as a buyer. After an interaction where Nora gestured to her co-accused, the co-accused received the marked money from PO3 Tutor and gave it to Nora. Nora then handed one plastic sachet of suspected shabu to PO3 Tutor. Upon the pre-arranged signal, Nora and her co-accused were arrested. A body search on Nora yielded one big and forty elongated plastic sachets containing suspected shabu, along with cash. The seized items were placed in evidence pouches and kept in PO3 Tutor’s custody. Due to the crowd, the team proceeded to the police station. The inventory and photography of the seized items were conducted two days later, on August 8, 2011, in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a barangay official, and a DOJ representative. The items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Nora was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . She pleaded not guilty, claiming she was merely shopping when suddenly arrested, and that no drugs were found on her during the body search. The Regional Trial Court convicted her, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed the CA Decision, and acquitted accused-appellant Zoraida Mariano. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, which is essential to prove the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The buy-bust team did not comply with the mandatory witness requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 . The law requires the inventory and photography to be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused or her representative, and three specific witnesses: an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and a representative from the media. Here, the inventory was conducted two days after the seizure. While the prosecution claimed the unavailability of witnesses justified the delay because the operation happened on a Saturday, it failed to offer any justifiable reason for not securing the required witnesses immediately after the arrest or to show that earnest efforts were made to secure their presence. The prosecution did not explain why the inventory could not have been conducted on the same day with available witnesses. This unjustified deviation from the prescribed procedure compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Consequently, the identity of the corpus delicti was not proven with moral certainty, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.