G.R. No. 172873 March 19, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ROLDAN MORALES y MIDARASA, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Roldan Morales y Midarasa was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City with illegal possession and illegal sale of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in two separate Informations dated January 2, 2003. The prosecution presented PO1 Eduardo Roy and PO3 Armando Rivera, who testified about a buy-bust operation conducted on that date. PO1 Roy acted as the poseur-buyer and was introduced to appellant as a buyer of “piso” worth of shabu. Appellant allegedly produced a sachet of shabu and, upon receiving marked money totaling ₱100.00, was arrested. A body search yielded another sachet of shabu and aluminum foils. The seized items were brought to the Crime Laboratory, where the sachets tested positive for shabu. The defense presented appellant, his employer, and his mother. Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was working as a parking attendant to earn bus fare when he was suddenly arrested by policemen who planted evidence on him. He alleged that PO3 Rivera had a prior grudge against his cousin. The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both charges, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine for illegal sale, and an imprisonment term of 12 years and 1 month to 13 years plus a fine for illegal possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant for illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED appellant Roldan Morales y Midarasa. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, which is crucial in proving the corpus delicti. The apprehending officers did not comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules, which requires the physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this non-compliance. PO1 Roy admitted that no physical inventory was conducted at the place of seizure or at the police station, and no representatives from the media, the Department of Justice, or any elected official were present during the purported inventory. The failure to establish the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, due to the broken chain of custody, created reasonable doubt on appellant’s guilt. The presumption of innocence prevails, and the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty mandates acquittal when guilt is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.