G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Ruben Robles y Novilinio, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Ruben Robles y Novilinio was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu under Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of PO2 Marlou Besoña and PO3 Elorde Malicse, was that on July 5, 2002, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Parañaque City. PO2 Besoña, acting as poseur-buyer, bought a plastic sachet of shabu from appellant for ₱100. Upon the pre-arranged signal, appellant was arrested. The prosecution alleged that appellant voluntarily surrendered two more sachets upon arrest. A total of four sachets were recovered from appellant and his co-accused, Leogando Pilapil, which tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant and Pilapil denied the charges, claiming they were arbitrarily arrested while playing cara y cruz and eating barbecue, respectively, and that no shabu was recovered from them. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of both charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for illegal sale but acquitted him for illegal possession due to discrepancies in the identity of the substance and the prosecution’s failure to distinguish the shabu sold from that allegedly possessed.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly with respect to establishing the chain of custody of the seized shabu.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted appellant. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized shabu, which is crucial as the existence of the dangerous drug is the corpus delicti of the crime. The testimonies of the police officers did not adequately explain how the seized sachet was handled from the time of confiscation until its presentation in court. PO2 Besoña testified he turned over the sachet to SPO3 Ocfemia but did not explain how it reached the crime laboratory. While he claimed it was marked by an investigator in his presence, he did not specify when this was done. PO3 Malicse also failed to detail the custody process. The prosecution did not present evidence on every link in the chain, such as who received the specimen at the laboratory and the condition of its delivery. This failure to comply with the chain of custody rule created reasonable doubt as to whether the drug presented in court was the same one allegedly bought from appellant. Consequently, appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.