GR 223712; (September, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 223712 , September 11, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor Sumilip y Tillo, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Victor Sumilip y Tillo was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on July 4, 2009, a buy-bust operation was conducted in San Fernando City, La Union, where PO2 Ricardo Annague, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper from Sumilip for PHP500.00. Upon consummation of the sale, Sumilip was arrested. The seized marijuana was marked, inventoried, and photographed at the police station in the presence of Sumilip and some barangay officials, then brought to the crime laboratory for examination, which confirmed it was marijuana. The defense presented a different version, claiming Sumilip was arbitrarily arrested while eating at a restaurant, brought to the police station, and later brought back to the restaurant for a simulated arrest. The Regional Trial Court convicted Sumilip, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Sumilip appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing a broken chain of custody.
ISSUE
Whether or not accused-appellant Victor Sumilip y Tillo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Victor Sumilip y Tillo. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized marijuana, thereby failing to prove the corpus delicti of the offense. Specifically, the prosecution did not present any testimony detailing who had custody of the marijuana from the time of seizure at the place of arrest until its turnover at the police station for marking and inventory. This gap created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the evidence presented in court. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165 is essential, and the prosecution’s failure to account for every link in the chain, without showing justifiable grounds for non-compliance, warrants acquittal. The constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail when the prosecution does not overcome reasonable doubt.