GR 253336; (May, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 253336 , May 10, 2021
Joel David y Mangio, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
This case stemmed from an Information charging petitioner Joel David y Mangio with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on September 8, 2012, police officers responded to a complaint from David’s mother, Bertilla, regarding scandalous acts. Upon arrival at their residence in Bacolor, Pampanga, David was shouting and challenging others to a fight. PO3 Gerald Flores arrested David for Alarms and Scandals. At the police station, PO3 Flores noticed David’s right hand inserted inside his shorts. Upon being asked, David revealed a transparent plastic sachet containing dried leaves, which Bertilla identified as marijuana. PO3 Flores confiscated the sachet, marked it, and prepared an inventory and request for laboratory examination. The inventory and photography were witnessed by two Barangay Kagawads and a media representative, but no representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) was present. The forensic examination confirmed the contents were marijuana. David denied the charges, claiming he only saw the marijuana at the police station. The Regional Trial Court found David guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming David’s conviction despite an unexplained lapse in the chain of custody rule, specifically the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory and photography of the seized item.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and ACQUITTED Joel David y Mangio.
The Court held that in prosecutions for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty, requiring strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure. Under Section 21 of RA 9165, prior to its amendment by RA 10640, the inventory and photography must be conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative, and three required witnesses: a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official. While the prosecution established the presence of two elected public officials and a media representative, it admitted the absence of a DOJ representative. The apprehending officer, PO3 Flores, testified that he requested the presence of all three witnesses but offered no justifiable reason or details on the efforts exerted to secure the DOJ representative’s presence. This unjustified deviation from the witness requirement compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove David’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting his acquittal.