GR 223036; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 223036 . July 10, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. MIKE OMAMOS y PAJO, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Mike Omamos y Pajo was convicted by the trial court for selling 110.1 grams of marijuana in a buy-bust operation at Carmen Public Market, Cagayan de Oro City. The prosecution evidence established that a police team, acting on a tip, conducted the operation where a poseur-buyer handed marked money to Omamos in exchange for a plastic bag of marijuana. Upon the pre-arranged signal, officers arrested Omamos and recovered the marked money. The seized item was marked at the scene and later tested positive for cannabis.
The defense presented a starkly different version, alleging frame-up. Omamos claimed he was forcibly taken by two drunk men, brought to the police station, and coerced into holding the money and marijuana for photographs. He denied any involvement in a drug sale and asserted he was not informed of his constitutional rights.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drug with moral certainty, complying with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 .
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED Omamos. The legal logic centers on the prosecution’s failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody, which is indispensable in drug cases. The corpus delicti—the illegal drug itself—must be shown to be the very same item seized from the accused. The Court identified critical lapses: first, the arresting officers did not conduct the required physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or his representative, a mandatory witness, or any elected public official, as mandated by law. Second, the prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this deviation from the strict procedural safeguards.
These lapses compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence when the procedures designed to prevent tampering or planting of evidence are not followed. Consequently, the identity of the corpus delicti was not established beyond reasonable doubt. As the dangerous drug presented in court was rendered unreliable, Omamos’s guilt could not be morally certain, warranting acquittal.