Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Reyes
Case
G.R. No. 199271
Decision Date
Oct 19, 2016
Jehar Reyes acquitted due to broken chain of custody and procedural lapses in a buy-bust operation for illegal shabu sale under R.A. No. 9165.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232437)

Key Dates

Surveillance Period: Two weeks before November 27, 2002
Buy-bust Operation: November 27, 2002, around 2:00 p.m.
RTC Decision: March 9, 2007
CA Decision: June 13, 2011
SC Decision: October 19, 2016

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution, Art. III, § 14 (presumption of innocence)
Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002),
 • § 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs)
 • § 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs)
IRR of RA 9165, Art. II, § 21 (chain of custody requirements)
Rules of Court, Rule 120, § 4 (variance between allegation and proof)

Facts of the Case

A two-week surveillance confirmed Reyes’s alleged drug-pushing. On November 27, 2002, Villahermosa and Miro approached Reyes’s house for a buy-bust. Reyes allegedly handed one plastic pack of white crystalline substance (shabu) in exchange for ₱1,000 marked money. Upon signal, arresting officers frisked Reyes and recovered two additional packs. All three packs, marked “JR-B,” “JR-1,” and “JR-2,” totaling 1.44 grams, were submitted to the crime laboratory and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Procedural History

Reyes pleaded not guilty. The RTC convicted him under § 5, RA 9165, sentenced him to life imprisonment and ₱500,000 fine, and ordered destruction of the confiscated drugs. On appeal, the CA affirmed, finding both essential elements of illegal sale established and the chain of custody intact.

Issue

Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) the illegal sale of shabu and (b) an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs?

Elements of Illegal Sale

Under § 5, RA 9165, the prosecution must establish:

  1. Identity of buyer and seller, object and consideration;
  2. Delivery of the drug and receipt of payment.
    Testimony proved delivery and payment only for the pack marked “JR-B.”

Separate Offense of Possession

The two additional packs (“JR-1,” “JR-2”) were recovered only by frisking, without corresponding sale or payment. They could support illegal possession under § 11, RA 9165, but no separate information was filed.

Chain of Custody Requirement

Because the dangerous drug is the corpus delicti, its identity and integrity must be preserved through:

  1. Immediate inventory and photography of seized items in the presence of the accused (or counsel), media and DOJ representatives, and an elected public official;
  2. Marking of items as close to the point and time of seizure as practicable;
  3. Continuous custody from seizure to presentation in court.

Procedural Lapses in Chain of Custody

• Markings were placed later at the police station, not “immediately” at seizure. Witnesses gave inconsistent accounts of who marked the packs.
• No credible showing that Reyes or the required third-party witnesses were present at marking.
• No inventory report or photographs of the seized packs.
• Absence of media/DOJ representatives and elected official at seizure and inventory.
• Prosecution offered no justification for these lapses or reliance on the IRR’s saving clause.

Presumptions of Regularity and Innocence

While police officers enjoy a rebuttable presumption of regular performance of duty, any hint of

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.