G.R. No. 258873 , August 30, 2023
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Abdul Azis y Sampaco a.k.a. “Mohammad Macapundag Guimbor” @ “Major” and Alibair Macadato y Macadato @ “Ongkay,” Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Abdul Azis and Alibair Macadato were charged with separate violations of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution’s version states that on June 15, 2016, police officers conducting “Oplan Galugad” in Caloocan City observed from about 1.5 meters away as Azis handed a plastic bag of suspected shabu to Macadato, uttering “eto pa yung tamok galing kay Patak.” The officers immediately apprehended them. A search incidental to arrest yielded from Azis’s sling bag five plastic sachets of shabu totaling 491.69 grams and a firearm, and from Macadato’s sling bag six plastic sachets totaling 131.09 grams. The items were marked at the place of arrest. Due to a mob forming, the team proceeded to their office for inventory, where only a media representative was present; attempts to contact a barangay official and a DOJ representative were unsuccessful as it was past office hours. The items were later examined and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense interposed frame-up, with Azis claiming police forcibly entered his home, planted evidence, and arrested him. Macadato, through witnesses, claimed he was arrested from his house without cause.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants for violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals Decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellants. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, which is crucial in proving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The apprehending team did not comply with the witness requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640. Only a media representative was present during the inventory and photographing; the required elected public official and representative from the National Prosecution Service or the accused’s counsel were absent. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground for this non-compliance, merely stating that attempts to contact the barangay and DOJ failed because it was past office hours. This was not a sufficient reason to deviate from the mandatory procedure. The failure to secure the presence of the required insulating witnesses, without a credible explanation, compromised the integrity of the seized items and created reasonable doubt as to their identity. Consequently, the prosecution did not prove the guilt of accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.