G.R. No. 250307 , February 21, 2023
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, VS. ROBERT UY y TING, ONG CHI SENG @ JACKIE ONG or ARCHIE, CO CHING KI @ CHAI ONG, TAN TY SIAO, GO SIAK PING, JAMES GO ONG @ WILLIAM GAN, Accused, ROBERT UY y TING, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Robert Uy y Ting, along with five others, was charged in two consolidated cases. In Criminal Case No. 1179-V-03, they were charged with Violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26(b), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for the transport of approximately 9,384.7 grams of shabu on November 10, 2003, along MacArthur Highway, Valenzuela City. In Criminal Case No. 1180-V-03, they were charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 , for possessing approximately 119.080 kilograms of shabu and 111.200 kilograms of chloromethamphetamine hydrochloride on or prior to November 11, 2003, in a warehouse in Mapulang Lupa, Valenzuela City.
The prosecution evidence, as summarized by the Court of Appeals, established that a joint operation by the Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Force (AID-SOTF) and the Bureau of Immigration (BI) on November 10, 2003, led to the apprehension of accused Jackie Ong and three Chinese nationals in Binondo, Manila, for immigration violations. At the AID-SOTF office, Co Ching Ki and Jackie Ong allegedly offered ten kilos of shabu in exchange for their freedom. P/Sr. Insp. Rainerio De Chavez played along and arranged a pick-up at McDonald’s along MacArthur Highway. A Mitsubishi Lancer was left there, which accused-appellant Robert Uy later drove to a warehouse in Mapulang Lupa. Upon returning to the pick-up area, Uy was arrested, and a box containing five plastic bags of white crystalline substance was recovered from the car. The following day, November 11, 2003, a search warrant was served on the warehouse, leading to the discovery of large quantities of shabu and chloromethamphetamine hydrochloride. Prosecution witness Rogelio Samorano testified that he leased the warehouse to Willie Gan and that Robert Uy contacted him to arrange the inspection and rental.
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s judgment with modification. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant Robert Uy y Ting’s conviction for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the April 25, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals. Accused-appellant Robert Uy y Ting was ACQUITTED of the charges in Criminal Case Nos. 1179-V-03 and 1180-V-03 on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court ordered his immediate release from detention unless he is being held for another lawful cause.
The acquittal was based on the prosecution’s failure to establish the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs with moral certainty, due to breaches in the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . The Court found that the prescribed procedure for the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items was not complied with. The prosecution did not offer a justifiable reason for these lapses. Specifically, for the items seized from the car (Criminal Case No. 1179-V-03), there was no evidence that an inventory was conducted or photographs were taken at the place of seizure, at the nearest police station, or at the nearest office of the apprehending team. For the massive quantities of drugs seized from the warehouse (Criminal Case No. 1180-V-03), while an Inventory Receipt was presented, the prosecution failed to prove that the required witnesses (an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice, and a representative from the media) were present during the inventory and photographing. The testimony of the seizing officer, SPO2 Busa, did not specify who the witnesses were, and the presented photographs did not clearly show their presence. These procedural gaps created reasonable doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from the accused-appellant. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the State carries not only the burden of proving the elements of the crime but also of proving compliance with the chain of custody procedure. Any failure must be justified; otherwise, it warrants acquittal.