G.R. No. 231902 , June 30, 2021
Dennis Oliver Castronuevo Luna, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

An Information was filed against petitioner Dennis Oliver Castronuevo Luna for violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for allegedly possessing 5.226 kilograms of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) on July 28, 2005, in Quezon City. The prosecution’s version states that based on information from a confidential informant, a buy-bust operation was conducted. The poseur-buyer, SPO3 Parreño, met petitioner, who was driving a Toyota Revo, at Hap Chan Restaurant. Petitioner instructed SPO3 Parreño to get a blue bag from the back seat, which contained six packs of white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. Upon retrieval, SPO3 Parreño signaled the team, and petitioner was arrested. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and later tested positive for shabu. The defense presented a different version, claiming petitioner was merely a driver hired by Susan Lagman and was instructed by a certain “Sexy” to wait at Hap Chan and tell “Mike” to retrieve a bag from the vehicle, denying any knowledge of its illegal contents. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, holding that petitioner constructively possessed the drugs and that the chain of custody was sufficiently observed.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC and CA erred in convicting petitioner Luna for violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted petitioner Luna. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner freely, consciously, and knowingly possessed the seized drugs, which is an essential element of the crime of illegal possession. The evidence did not establish the requisite animus possidendi (intent to possess). Petitioner’s mere presence as the driver of the vehicle, coupled with his lack of knowledge of the bag’s contents as shown by his actions following the instructions of “Sexy,” created reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Furthermore, the Court found lapses in the chain of custody, particularly the failure to strictly comply with the witness requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 during the inventory and photographing of the seized items, which undermined the integrity of the evidence. Given the failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, petitioner was acquitted and ordered released immediately unless detained for another lawful cause.