G.R. No. 249289, September 28, 2020
JOSEPH SAYSON Y PAROCHA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Joseph Sayson was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Republic Act No. 9165. During a buy-bust operation on July 25, 2016, police officers allegedly recovered one sachet from a sale and five more sachets from his person. Due to a gathering crowd at the scene, the apprehending officers brought the seized items to the barangay hall for marking and inventory. The inventory was witnessed only by the barangay duty desk officer, an elected public official. The prosecution presented no evidence that the officers attempted to secure the presence of the other required witnesses—a representative from the media and the Department of Justice—as mandated by law at the time of the incident.
The Regional Trial Court acquitted Sayson of illegal sale but convicted him of illegal possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling that the marking at the barangay hall was justified due to the commotion and that the buy-bust team had exerted earnest efforts to contact the required witnesses. Petitioner appealed, arguing a broken chain of custody.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted the petitioner. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the identity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody. A critical link in this chain is the immediate post-seizure procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165, which, at the time of the offense, required the inventory and photographing to be conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, and an elected public official.
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with this witness requirement. The presence of only an elected public official was insufficient. More importantly, the prosecution did not provide any justifiable ground for this deviation. The mere allegation of a commotion and the transfer of the items to the barangay hall did not, by itself, excuse the absence of the other mandatory witnesses. The police officers did not demonstrate that they had made actual and serious attempts to contact the required media and DOJ representatives before proceeding with the inventory. The law demands a showing of genuine and earnest effort, which was absent here. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised, creating reasonable doubt. The failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody thus warranted acquittal.