G.R. No. 227867 , June 26, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VICTOR DE LEON, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

An Information was filed charging Victor De Leon (appellant) with illegal sale of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The charge stemmed from a buy-bust operation on April 10, 2007, in Santiago City, where appellant allegedly sold one plastic sachet of shabu worth ₱1,000.00 to poseur-buyer IO1 Lirio T. Ilao. Appellant escaped immediately after the operation and was later arrested for a separate murder charge.
During the trial, the prosecution presented the following version: A PDEA team was formed after an informant set a deal to purchase shabu from appellant. IO1 Ilao acted as poseur-buyer and was given two marked ₱500.00 bills. At appellant’s residence, IO1 Ilao handed the marked money to appellant, who in turn gave her one sachet of shabu. Appellant then went to his room to allegedly repack another sachet. IO1 Ilao gave a pre-arranged signal, and the backup team entered, but appellant had already escaped. The team arrested two other individuals found inside the house. The seized sachet was later marked at the PDEA office with the initials of IO1 Ilao, IO1 Sanchez, and IO1 Asayco. A “Receipt of Property Seized” was prepared, but the inventory was not witnessed by the appellant (due to his escape), any elective public official, DOJ representative, or media member. No photograph of the seized items was taken. The forensic chemist’s testimony was dispensed with after the defense admitted the chemist’s expertise, the request for examination, and the finding that the specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a denial, claiming appellant was at the public market at the time of the alleged buy-bust and only learned about the PDEA operation from his mother and neighbor upon returning home.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found appellant guilty, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the corpus delicti and complying with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the appeal and REVERSED the decisions of the CA and RTC. The Court acquitted Victor De Leon on the ground of reasonable doubt due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug.
The Court held that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. Compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165 is crucial to remove any doubt or alteration of the evidence.
The Court found glaring inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution’s evidence regarding the custody of the seized sachet:
1. Initial Custody: IO1 Ilao testified she kept custody of the sachet she bought from appellant while on the way to the PDEA office. Conversely, IO1 Asayco and IO1 Sanchez testified that their investigator, SPO1 Natividad, had possession of all seized items (including the one sold) from the scene since they were recovered at the house.
2. Transfer to the Office: There was no clear testimony on how the sachet allegedly in IO1 Ilao’s personal custody was later turned over to be marked collectively with the other officers at the office.
3. Non-compliance with Section 21: The required physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were not done in the presence of the accused or the required witnesses (an elective public official, a representative from the DOJ, and the media). No justifiable reason for this non-compliance was offered by the prosecution.
These inconsistencies and procedural lapses created significant doubt as to whether the sachet presented in court was the same one allegedly sold by appellant. The broken chain of custody compromised the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ordered his immediate release from detention unless he is held for another lawful cause.