G.R. No. 181492, December 16, 2008
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. SAMUEL OBMIRANIS y ORETA, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Samuel Obmiranis y Oreta was charged with violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26 of Republic Act No. 9165 for allegedly attempting to sell one transparent plastic sachet containing 2.800 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) during a buy-bust operation on May 18, 2004. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of Police Officer Jerry Velasco, the team leader and poseur-buyer. Velasco testified that after appellant arrived at the agreed location, showed the shabu, and asked for payment, he was arrested. Velasco stated that Police Officer Cinco seized the plastic sachet from appellant and later marked it with the initials “SOO” at the police station. The forensic chemistry report confirmed the substance was shabu. During trial, Velasco admitted there was no designated evidence custodian, he could not remember if the seized item was inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, that Cinco put the item in his pocket after recovery without marking it on the spot, and that the markings on the buy-bust money were not entered in the blotter. Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was framed and arrested on May 17, 2004, without committing any crime, and that the arresting officers demanded money from him. The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the identity of the dangerous drug and preserved its chain of custody beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted appellant. The Court emphasized that in drug prosecutions, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty as it constitutes the corpus delicti. The chain of custody rule requires evidence sufficient to show that the item presented in court is the same as that seized from the accused. The prosecution failed to meet this burden. Critical links in the chain were broken: Police Officer Cinco, who seized and allegedly marked the drug, was not presented to testify; the forensic chemist who examined the substance did not testify regarding the custody and handling of the specimen; and the required witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the seized item under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and its implementing rules were not complied with. Velasco’s admissions regarding the lapses in procedure further undermined the integrity of the evidence. The prosecution’s failure to account for every link in the chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the drug presented as evidence. Consequently, appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.