GR 173474; (August, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. REYNALDO BELOCURA y PEREZ, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Reynaldo Belocura, a police officer, was convicted for illegal possession of 1,789.823 grams of marijuana. The prosecution alleged that on March 22, 1999, a police team, acting on a tip about a robbery, flagged down Belocura’s jeep for using a spurious government plate. Upon arrest for an unlicensed firearm, a search of his vehicle yielded a red plastic bag containing two bricks of marijuana under the driver’s seat. The items were turned over to the General Assignment Section and later examined by a forensic chemist, who confirmed the substance was marijuana.
Belocura presented a different version, claiming he was on his way to work when accosted by around thirty officers who disarmed and handcuffed him. He denied any knowledge of the marijuana bricks, asserting he saw them for the first time in court. He maintained the charge was fabricated due to his refusal to assist former colleagues in illegal activities.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution established the integrity of the corpus delicti by proving an unbroken chain of custody of the seized marijuana, thereby proving Belocura’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Belocura. The ruling hinged on the prosecution’s fatal failure to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The legal logic is that in drug cases, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be proven with moral certainty. This requires accounting for each link in the chain: from seizure, to marking, to turnover for laboratory examination, to presentation in court.
The Court found glaring gaps in this chain. First, the prosecution did not present PO2 Eraldo Santos, the officer who allegedly recovered the plastic bag from the jeep. His testimony was crucial to establish the initial link. Second, there was no evidence showing who marked the bricks with “RB-1” and “RB-2,” when, and where this was done. The forensic chemist merely received the already-marked items. Third, the prosecution failed to account for the handling of the evidence between its turnover to the General Assignment Section and its receipt by the crime laboratory the next day. No testimony detailed its safekeeping during this interval. These breaks in the chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to whether the marijuana presented in court was the same substance allegedly seized from Belocura. Consequently, the indispensable element of the identity of the prohibited drug was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.