GR 219174; (February, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 219174 , February 21, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ALVIN VELASCO y HUEVOS, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Alvin Velasco, along with Vevir Diaz, was charged with violating Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) following a buy-bust operation on August 7, 2006, in Calapan City. The prosecution alleged that a police asset arranged a drug deal. PO2 Alcano, acting as poseur-buyer, handed marked money to Velasco, who in turn gave a plastic sachet of suspected shabu. Diaz, present during the transaction, offered more drugs. The arresting team apprehended both, recovering the marked money from Velasco and three more sachets from Diaz. The seized items were marked, inventoried in the presence of a barangay captain, and later confirmed by forensic examination to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a starkly different account. Velasco testified he was arbitrarily apprehended by armed men in civilian clothes while crossing a road, accused of carrying a firearm, and searched. He denied any involvement in a drug sale. Diaz claimed he was in the area for leisure activities and was similarly arrested without cause after being asked if he had a gun. Both asserted the buy-bust story was fabricated.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of accused-appellant Alvin Velasco for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED Velasco. The acquittal was anchored on the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, a critical element in drug-related prosecutions. The Court emphasized that the State bears the burden of proving compliance with the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 , which are designed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.
The legal logic centers on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. This presumption cannot stand when the records are devoid of any explanation for non-compliance with Section 21’s requirements. While the police claimed to have conducted an inventory witnessed by a barangay official, the prosecution did not account for the absence of other required witnesses, such as a representative from the Department of Justice or the media, nor did it offer any justifiable ground for such lapse. This failure to justify the procedural deviations broke the chain of custody. Consequently, a reasonable doubt was created as to whether the substance presented in court was the very same item seized from Velasco. In the face of this doubt regarding the identity and integrity of the evidence, which is the very core of the crime, Velasco’s guilt could not be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court thus ordered his immediate release.