G.R. No. 228718 . January 07, 2019.
EDWIN FUENTES Y GARCIA @ “KANYOD,” PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case stemmed from two Informations charging petitioner Edwin Fuentes and Nicky Calotes with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. The prosecution alleged that on August 25, 2006, police officers, after surveillance, saw Calotes handing Fuentes a plastic sachet in an alley. The officers immediately arrested them, confiscating one sachet from Calotes and two from Fuentes. The seized items were marked and inventoried at the police station in the presence of the City Architect of Muntinlupa, then brought to the crime laboratory where they tested positive for shabu.
In defense, Fuentes and Calotes denied the charges, claiming the evidence was planted. They admitted being at the location but asserted Fuentes was merely paying a debt to Calotes. They testified that nothing was recovered from them during a bodily search, but they were nonetheless brought to the police station, tested, and charged.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld petitioner’s conviction for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

RULING

The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court acquitted petitioner due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which compromised the integrity of the corpus delicti. For illegal possession, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty. This requires accounting for each link in the chain: seizure, marking, inventory, and laboratory examination. The law mandates the inventory and photography be conducted immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused and specific witnesses—a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice, AND any elected public official, as required under RA 9165 prior to its amendment.
Here, the inventory was witnessed only by an elected public official (the City Architect). The prosecution did not present any representative from the media or the DOJ, nor did it offer any justifiable explanation for this deviation from the mandatory witness requirement. The saving clause allowing non-compliance under justifiable grounds applies only when the prosecution credibly explains the deviation and proves the integrity of the evidence was preserved. The prosecution failed on both counts. The absence of the required insulating witnesses, without any stated justifiable reason, created doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from the accused. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were not preserved, warranting acquittal based on reasonable doubt.