GR 219164; (March, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 219164 March 21, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Richael Luna y Torsilino, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Richael Luna was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on April 14, 2008, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Marikina City where SPO1 Ramiel Soriano, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from Luna for PHP 300. Upon the consummation of the sale, Luna was arrested, and another sachet was confiscated from his person. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and later confirmed by forensic examination to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Luna presented a different version, claiming he was at home with his children when police officers forcibly entered, searched his room, and arrested him without cause. He denied any involvement in the sale or possession of illegal drugs, asserting the evidence was fabricated.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165 .
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Luna. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, which is crucial in proving the corpus delicti in drug-related cases. Specifically, the apprehending officers did not strictly comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 . The physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were not conducted immediately at the place of arrest, as required by law. The inventory was signed by a barangay official at the barangay hall and by a media representative only at the police station, indicating a deviation from the procedure mandating the presence of the required witnesses at the time and place of seizure. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground for this non-compliance. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised, creating reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones allegedly taken from Luna. The presumption of innocence prevails, and the failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt warrants acquittal.