G.R. No.

225789 July 29, 2019

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
ALTANTOR DELA TORRE, Accused-Appellant

FACTS:

Through a buy-bust operation composing of the local police

force of Dagupan City, accused Altantor was arrested for selling and
delivering to a customer Shabu, contrary to Article II, Section 5, of
R.A. 9165.

PO3 Calimlim, being the poseur-buyer, allegedly confirmed

the consummation of the crime, and SPO1 Ferrer, the arresting
officer, immediately seized the accused. PO3 Calimlim marked the
seized items immediately and brought it to the Barangay Hall of
Magsaysay together with the accused. With the presence of two (2)
barangay kagawads, SPO1 Ferrer inventoried the seized items. PO3
Calimlim personally delivered the seized items to the crime
laboratory and subsequently found to be positive for shabu.

RTC rendered a verdict of conviction.

On appeal, appellant alleged non-compliance with the chain

of custody requirement. However, CA affirmed the RTC decision.

Thus, this petition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s verdict of
conviction despite the attendant procedural deficiencies.

RULING OF THE COURT:

The court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the CA
decision.

Section 21 of R.A. 9165 prescribes for the standard in

preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug case, viz:

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 drug, 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 drug 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, and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

xxx

The chain of custody had been breached in several instances.

First, the venue for marking the inventory was not properly
complied with. The inventory was conducted at the barangay hall,
without any explanation as to the distance from the nearest police
station or nearest office of the apprehending team.

Second, PO3 Calimlim and SPO1 Ferrer both testified that

there was neither a representative from the media nor from the
DOJ during the conduct of the post-operation procedures. Such
representatives must be present, as mandated by the law. Failure
to comply with this requirement shall result in the acquittal of the
accused.

Finally, the photograph requirement was not complied at all.

The prosecution has offered in evidence 2 photographs; however, it
does not contain the seized item neither the appearance of the
appellant nor the witnesses.

Indeed, the repeated breach of the chain of custody rule had

cast serious uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the corpus
delicti. Therefore, a verdict of acquittal was in order.