G.R. No. 180693 ; September 4, 2009
Bonifacio Dolera y Tejada, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Bonifacio Dolera was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on August 14, 2003, police officers, acting on a report of drug trafficking, saw Dolera at a distance of seven meters scrutinizing a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. The officers approached, introduced themselves, and confiscated the sachet. A subsequent frisk yielded another sachet from Dolera’s pocket. The seized items, marked at the station, were later confirmed by a forensic report to contain 0.10 grams each of shabu. The defense presented a denial, claiming Dolera was forcibly taken from in front of his house without any drugs being recovered and was later framed after he refused to identify a drug pusher.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Dolera, giving credence to the police testimony and noting the improbability of a random arrest in daylight. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling that any irregularity in the warrantless arrest was waived by Dolera’s active participation in the trial and that the police officers enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner for illegal possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted petitioner Bonifacio Dolera. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal possession, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the prohibited drug, a crucial element of the crime. The chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is vital to establish this identity and prevent tampering or substitution. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain. The testimony revealed that the arresting officer, PO2 Labon, marked the seized items only at the police station, not immediately at the place of arrest. More critically, there was a complete absence of testimony regarding who received the evidence at the station and how it was handled, stored, and transferred to the crime laboratory. The stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist only covered the examination result, not the custody links before the evidence reached him.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and cannot substitute for the prosecution’s failure to prove every element of the crime, including the integrity of the corpus delicti. The broken chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to whether the substances examined were the same ones allegedly seized from Dolera. Consequently, his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.