G.R. No. 130805. April 27, 2004.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. TOKOHISA KIMURA and AKIRA KIZAKI, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a buy-bust operation targeting Koichi Kishi and Rey Plantilla at Cash and Carry Supermarket, Makati. After the sale of shabu to an undercover officer, Kishi was apprehended while Plantilla escaped. Kishi informed the operatives that his suppliers would arrive to fetch him. Later, appellants Kimura and Kizaki arrived in a car. A third person, “Boy,” arrived in a jeep. Appellants alighted; Kizaki entered Boy’s jeep, while Kimura retrieved a newspaper-wrapped package from the car trunk and handed it to Boy. As police approached, Kimura was arrested, but Boy and Kizaki sped away. Inspection of the car trunk revealed three sacks containing marijuana bricks weighing 40,768 grams. Kizaki was arrested two days later.
Appellants denied the charges, claiming they were merely at the supermarket because Kishi needed to meet someone. Kimura testified he was borrowing Kizaki’s car to get his television repaired and that he only saw the marijuana placed in the car trunk the day after his arrest. They asserted the marijuana was planted.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt appellants’ guilt for illegal transportation and delivery of marijuana under Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted appellants due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized marijuana, creating reasonable doubt. The legal logic hinges on the imperative of proving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti in drug cases. The prosecution witnesses gave conflicting testimonies on who marked, handled, and safeguarded the seized drugs immediately after confiscation. SPO4 Baldovino claimed he marked the sacks at the scene, while SPO1 Cabato testified the marking was done only at the police station. Forensic chemist Ludovico received the evidence two days post-seizure but could not account for its safekeeping in the interim.
These inconsistencies and gaps breached the required chain of custody under Dangerous Drugs Board regulations. The prosecution did not convincingly demonstrate that the marijuana presented in court was the very same substance seized from appellants’ car, unreasonably tampered with. The presumption of regularity in police duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence when the handling of critical evidence is fraught with doubt. Consequently, the guilt of appellants was not proven to the moral certainty required for conviction. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was reversed and set aside.