G.R. No. 185715 ; January 19, 2011
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Erlinda Capuno y Tison, Appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Erlinda Capuno y Tison, was charged with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . The Information alleged that on July 21, 2002, in Rodriguez, Rizal, she sold one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.04 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride to a poseur-buyer.
The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of PO1 Jose Gordon Antonio and PO1 Fortunato Jiro III, was as follows: At around 11:10 a.m., a civilian informant reported that a woman was selling drugs on Manggahan Street. A buy-bust team was formed with PO1 Antonio as the poseur-buyer. At the location, the informant pointed out the appellant. PO1 Antonio approached her, said “Paiskor ng halagang piso,” and handed a marked ₱100 bill. The appellant pulled a plastic sachet from her pocket and gave it to PO1 Antonio, who then arrested her. PO1 Jiro recovered the marked money from the appellant. The seized item was forwarded to the crime laboratory, which confirmed it was shabu.
The defense presented a different account. The appellant testified that two men in maong pants and sando entered her house, identified themselves as police officers, searched her house, and then brought her and her daughter to the municipal hall. She was jailed after refusing to reveal a supposed source of shabu. She denied selling drugs and claimed she only saw the alleged evidence in court. Her daughter corroborated her testimony.
The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellant, sentencing her to 12 years and 1 day to 12 years, 10 months, and 20 days imprisonment and a ₱100,000 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers regarding how they received the tip (in-person vs. by phone) and the location of the buy-bust (Manggahan Street vs. Manahan Street). She also contended that the police failed to coordinate with the PDEA and failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, as they did not mark, inventory, or photograph the items in the presence of the required witnesses under R.A. No. 9165 .

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the appellant’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED the appellant.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug with moral certainty, which is the corpus delicti of the offense. The required chain of custody under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not observed. The police officers did not immediately mark the seized plastic sachet at the place of arrest or at the nearest police station. There was also no evidence that the required physical inventory and photograph of the seized item were conducted in the presence of the appellant or her counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this non-compliance. This failure to follow the prescribed procedure created reasonable doubt as to whether the item presented in court was the same one seized from the appellant.
Furthermore, the Court found material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers. PO1 Antonio testified the informant came to the police station, while PO1 Jiro stated the informant called. More critically, they gave conflicting locations for the operation: PO1 Antonio said it was on Manggahan Street, while PO1 Jiro said it was on Manahan Street. The CA dismissed this as a “slip of the tongue,” but the Supreme Court found it a significant discrepancy regarding a crucial detail—the place of the alleged crime—which cast doubt on the integrity of the operation. The defense of frame-up or planting of evidence, while viewed with disfavor, gains credence in light of these irregularities and the police’s failure to follow the law’s safeguards.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence and cannot substitute for the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Given the broken chain of custody and the material inconsistencies, the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. Therefore, the appellant was acquitted on reasonable doubt.