G.R. No.

173794 January 18, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DARWIN RELATO y AJERO

DOCTRINE:

 “Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from
the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity
and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and
the final disposition.
 The State not only carries the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense of, but also bears
the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in which the State will not discharge its basic duty of
proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish
the corpus delictiwhen the prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when
substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the
authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court. 16 Any gap renders the case for
the State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

FACTS:

Darwin Relato y Ajero is now before the Court in a final plea for exoneration from his conviction for violating
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). Policemen had arrested
him on August 29, 2002 during a buy-bust operation and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon
had forthwith charged him with the offense in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), of Bulan, Sorsogon. The said
accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell, dispense and deliver to a PNP asset
disguised as poseur-buyer, two (2) plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride "shabu" weighing
0.0991 gram, for and in consideration of the sum of (P500.00), the serial number of which was previously
noted, without having been previously authorized by law to sell or deliver the same.

Relato denied the accusation, and claimed that he had been framed up. RTC convicted Relato. Relato
appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of RTC.

ISSUE:

WON Renato should be acquitted for failure to follow Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR

HELD:

YES. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of
prohibited drugs, to wit:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment. ̶ The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

xxx

The provisions of Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165
provide:

xxx

(a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of
the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures
of and custody over said items;

xxx

A review of the records establishes that the aforestated procedure laid down by Republic Act No. 9165 and its
IRR was not followed. Several lapses on the part of the buy-bust team are readily apparent. To start with, no
photograph of the seized shabu was taken. Secondly, the buy-bust team did not immediately mark the
seizedshabu at the scene of the crime and in the presence of Relato and witnesses. Thirdly, although there
was testimony about the marking of the seized items being made at the police station, the records do not show
that the marking was done in the presence of Relato or his chosen representative. And, fourthly, no
representative of the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official attended the taking of the
physical inventory and to sign the inventory.

"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person
who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in
the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. The procedural lapses
committed by the buy-bust team underscored the uncertainty about the identity and integrity of
the shabu admitted as evidence against the accused. They highlighted the failure of the Prosecution to
establish the chain of custody, by which the incriminating evidence would have been authenticated. An
unavoidable consequence of the non-establishment of the chain of custody was the serious doubt on whether
theshabu presented as evidence was really the shabu supposedly seized from Relato.

In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride prohibited under Republic Act
No. 9165,15 the State not only carries the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense of, but also bears
the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in which the State will not discharge its basic duty of proving
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus
delictiwhen the prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain
of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance
presented as evidence in court.16 Any gap renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.17 Thus, Relato deserves exculpation, especially as we recall
that his defense of frame-up became plausible in the face of the weakness of the Prosecution’s evidence of
guilt.

WHEREFORE, ACQUIT accused DARWIN RELATO y AJERO due to the failure of the State to establish his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.