G.R. No. 248382 , July 28, 2020
Jerry Barayuga y Joaquin, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jerry Barayuga y Joaquin was charged with violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) for allegedly selling 0.0803 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a police poseur-buyer on May 20, 2012, in Laoag City. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from PO1 Jackson Sugayen (poseur-buyer) and SPO4 Rovimanuel Balolong, established that a buy-bust operation was conducted. PO1 Sugayen handed marked money to petitioner, who in turn gave a plastic sachet of shabu. Petitioner was arrested, and the marked money and a fliptop cigarette box were recovered from him. The seized sachet was marked at the police station, not at the place of arrest. The prosecution and defense stipulated on the testimonies of other officers regarding the handling and examination of the evidence, which tested positive for shabu. The defense presented petitioner’s testimony denying the sale, claiming he was on his way to play mahjong when he was arbitrarily arrested, frisked, and framed. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner, acknowledging breaches in the chain of custody (marking and inventory not at the situs criminis, no mention of insulating witnesses during inventory, no photographs presented) but held the integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction despite the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug, thereby failing to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution, and ACQUITTED Jerry Barayuga y Joaquin. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody, which is crucial in establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti in drugs cases. The buy-bust team committed several unjustified deviations from the mandatory procedures under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165: (1) the marking of the seized sachet was not done immediately at the place of arrest but only at the police station; (2) the inventory and photographing of the seized items were not shown to have been conducted in the presence of the required insulating witnesses (a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official); and (3) no justifiable reason was provided for these lapses. The stipulations of the prosecution witnesses did not cure these fatal gaps, as they did not cover the crucial links in the chain, particularly the turnover from the arresting officer to the investigator and the manner of storage. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s failure to comply with the chain of custody rule. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the seized drug were compromised, warranting acquittal.