G.R. No. 200877 , November 12, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Charve John Lagahit, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Two separate Informations were filed against appellant Charve John Lagahit for violations of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession) of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The charges stemmed from an incident on August 29, 2003, in Cebu City. For the illegal sale charge (CBU-67096), it was alleged that appellant sold four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes with a total net weight of 0.49 gram to a poseur-buyer. For the illegal possession charge (CBU-67097), it was alleged that appellant was found in possession of eight sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes with a total net weight of 0.88 gram. Appellant pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, based primarily on the testimony of PO3 Arturo B. Lawas, Jr., was as follows: Based on reports of illegal drug sales near Barangay Lahug Elementary School, with appellant identified as a perpetrator, PO3 Lawas, Jr. conducted surveillance and confirmed the activity. On August 29, 2003, a buy-bust team was formed. A trusted informant acted as poseur-buyer, using a marked ₱20.00 bill. PO3 Lawas, Jr. and two barangay tanods served as back-ups. At the target area near a flyover stairway, the informant handed the marked money to appellant, who gave four sticks of marijuana. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the team apprehended appellant. During the arrest, PO3 Lawas, Jr. recovered eight more sticks of marijuana from appellant’s pocket, along with the marked money and other cash. The appellant was brought to the barangay hall and then to the police station. At the station, the four sticks from the sale were marked by a barangay tanod, and the eight sticks from possession were marked by PO3 Lawas, Jr. The items were then submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where they tested positive for marijuana.
The defense presented appellant, who denied the charges and claimed frame-up. He testified that on the said date and time, he was merely waiting for a friend near the barangay hall when three men arrested him without cause, poked a gun at him, and later claimed to have found cigarettes in his pocket.
The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both charges, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a ₱300,000 fine for illegal sale, and an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years plus a ₱200,000 fine for illegal possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically citing failure to establish the identity of the corpus delicti and non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.

ISSUE

Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, which is crucial in proving the identity of the corpus delicti. The Court noted the following breaks in the chain:
1. There was no testimony on how the poseur-buyer handled the four sticks of marijuana allegedly sold by appellant after the transaction and before they were turned over to PO3 Lawas, Jr. This created a gap from the moment of seizure.
2. The prosecution did not present the testimony of the forensic chemist who examined the drugs, despite this being dispensed with by agreement. The Court emphasized that while such dispensation is allowed, it does not relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove the chain of custody through other means.
3. There was a lack of evidence on who had custody of the drugs between their turnover to the crime laboratory and their presentation in court.
4. The prosecution failed to show compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically the requirement that the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. No justification for non-compliance was offered.
The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty, and the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court. The unexplained gaps in the chain of custody, coupled with the failure to comply with Section 21, created reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from appellant. Consequently, appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and acquitted appellant.