G.R. No. 252029 . November 15, 2021.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PABLITO PAGASPAS Y ALCANTARA AND JOEY DE LEON Y VALERIANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Pablito Pagaspas and Joey De Leon were charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, in relation to Section 26, of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). A separate Information charged Pagaspas with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of the same law. The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on July 19, 2017, in Calamba City, Laguna. According to the prosecution, PO1 France Yve P. Male acted as poseur-buyer and bought a sachet of shabu from Pagaspas, who was summoned by De Leon. Upon arrest, a body search on Pagaspas yielded four more sachets from a coin purse. The seized items were marked at the scene in the presence of a media representative and a barangay councilor, who arrived after the arrest. PO1 Male kept the sachets in his custody until they were turned over to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for shabu. The accused denied the charges, claiming they were framed and tortured. The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court via appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether accused-appellants Pablito Pagaspas and Joey De Leon are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 in relation to Section 26 of Republic Act No. 9165 .
2. Whether Pablito Pagaspas is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of the same law.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellants. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody due to unjustified deviations from the strict requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The marking of the seized items was done only after the arrival of the required witnesses, who were not present at the time of seizure and arrest. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this deviation. Furthermore, the testimony regarding who delivered the seized items to the crime laboratory was inconsistent, creating a gap in the chain. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were therefore compromised, giving rise to reasonable doubt. Convictions for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs require proof of an unbroken chain of custody to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. The unjustified non-compliance with the statutory procedure warranted the acquittal of the accused.