GR 171732; (August, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171732; August 14, 2009
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDGAR DENOMAN y ACURDA, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Edgar Denoman was charged with two separate violations of Republic Act No. 9165. In Criminal Case No. 27283-MN, he was accused of illegal possession of 0.04 grams of shabu on July 30, 2002. In Criminal Case No. 28387-MN, he was charged with illegal sale of 0.03 grams of shabu for ₱100.00 on February 17, 2003. Both incidents allegedly occurred in Malabon City. The prosecution presented police officers who testified to the buy-bust operation for the sale charge and a narcotics operation for the possession charge. The seized items were submitted for laboratory examination and tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court, in a Joint Decision, acquitted Denoman of illegal possession but convicted him for illegal sale, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Denoman appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and a break in the chain of custody of the seized drug.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti through an unbroken chain of custody.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted accused-appellant Edgar Denoman. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. This requires an unbroken chain of custody from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. The Court found a critical gap in this chain. The testimony of PO1 Carlos, the poseur-buyer, revealed that after the seizure, the plastic sachet was merely placed in his pocket and was not marked at the place of arrest. The marking, a crucial first step in the custodial process, was done only at the police station. This failure to immediately mark the seized item at the scene created doubt about its identity, as it became susceptible to switching, planting, or contamination. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this deviation from the procedure outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were compromised. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence when the procedure safeguarding the evidence is not followed. The broken chain of custody resulted in reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.