G.R. No. 241261 , July 29, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Albert Perez Flores, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

This case stemmed from two Informations charging accused-appellant Albert Perez Flores with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on March 7, 2015, police officers from Ginatilan Police Station, Cebu, implemented a buy-bust operation against Flores. During the operation, two sachets of white crystalline substance (total weight 0.12 gram) were recovered. Due to a crowd gathered for a motocross contest, the officers took Flores and the seized items to the police station. There, a body search in the presence of two barangay councilors yielded eight more sachets (total weight 0.43 gram). The markings, inventory, and photography of the seized items were conducted at the police station in the presence of Flores and the barangay councilors. Laboratory examination confirmed the substances were methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Flores denied the charges, claiming he was at the location for work and was forcibly taken by police who found no contraband in his bag. The Regional Trial Court found Flores guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the police officers complied with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, particularly the witness requirement during the inventory and photography of the seized dangerous drugs.

RULING

The appeal is meritorious. The Supreme Court acquitted accused-appellant Albert Perez Flores. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody due to unjustified non-compliance with the witness requirement mandated by law. The inventory and photography of the seized items were conducted only in the presence of Flores and two elected public officials (barangay councilors). The poseur-buyer, PO2 Ruben Catubig, testified that no representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the media were present, offering the excuses that it was “hard to contact” DOJ representatives and that their Chief of Police tried to contact a media representative who could not come due to distance. The Court ruled these explanations insufficient. The excuse of difficulty in contacting DOJ representatives, without detailing the genuine and earnest efforts made, was deemed too flimsy. Regarding the media representative, the prosecution’s failure to present the Chief of Police to attest to the efforts rendered the excuse unsubstantiated. The prosecution did not prove justifiable grounds for the non-compliance or that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the required witnesses. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were compromised, warranting acquittal.