G.R. No. 249990, July 08, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Ranilo S. Suarez, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

This case stemmed from an Information charging accused-appellant Ranilo S. Suarez with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. On July 16, 2008, PDEA operatives implemented a buy-bust operation in Panabo City, Davao Del Norte, against accused-appellant, recovering one plastic sachet of white crystalline substance. Due to a gathering crowd, the operatives immediately left the scene with accused-appellant. The marking of the seized item was conducted inside their service vehicle en route to the office. At the PDEA office, the seized item and buy-bust money were turned over to the duty desk officer. As required witnesses were unavailable, Investigating Officer Hazel B. Ortoyo took custody of the seized item and stored it in her locker, to which only she had access. The following day, IO2 Ortoyo brought the seized item to the crime laboratory in Ecoland, Davao City (in Davao Del Sur), where inventory and photography were conducted in the presence of media and DOJ representatives, an elected barangay official, and a photographer. Thereafter, the arresting officers brought accused-appellant and the seized item to the PNP Provincial Crime Laboratory in Tagum City, Davao Del Norte, where qualitative examination confirmed the substance was 0.1524 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Accused-appellant denied the charge, claiming he was framed while showing a house for rent, and that it was his first time seeing the alleged shabu at the crime laboratory.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly upheld accused-appellant’s conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.

RULING

No. The appeal is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision and acquitted accused-appellant. The Court found that the apprehending officers committed various irregularities constituting deviations from the chain of custody rule under RA 9165, which compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. First, while justified in not conducting marking at the arrest site due to the crowd, it was highly irregular to stop the vehicle on the highway to mark the item before reaching the PDEA office. Second, while securing witnesses the next day was justifiable, it was irregular to transport the accused and seized item to a crime laboratory in another city (Ecoland, Davao Del Sur) for inventory and photography instead of conducting it at the PDEA office. Third, after the inventory, they needlessly transported the accused and item to another crime laboratory in Tagum City, Davao Del Norte, for examination, a procedure not required by law. The prosecution failed to acknowledge or justify these deviations. The integrity of the seized drug was not established with moral certainty due to breaks in the chain of custody, warranting acquittal.