G.R. No. 178757 March 13, 2009
RONALD CARINO and ROSANA ANDES, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Ronald Carino and Rosana Andes were apprehended on June 20, 2003, at a Quezon City intersection by a police team conducting “Oplan Sita.” They were arrested without a warrant for allegedly possessing plastic sachets containing shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride). Separate Informations were filed against them for violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution’s case relied on the testimonies of PO1 Joseph Tayaban and PO1 Arnold Eugenio. Tayaban testified that Eugenio spotted Carino holding a plastic sachet, leading to his arrest. Carino then identified Andes as the source. Upon approaching Andes, Tayaban saw her insert something into her child’s pocket, from which he recovered another plastic sachet. The sachets were marked at the police station. Eugenio corroborated this, stating he was the one who grabbed Carino and seized the sachet from him. A chemistry report confirmed the sachets contained shabu. Both petitioners denied the charges. Carino claimed the police planted the evidence and mauled him. Andes testified she was merely asked to identify Carino, was frisked with nothing found, and that the police demanded money for their release. The Regional Trial Court found them guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the petitioners for illegal possession of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the establishment of the corpus delicti and the chain of custody of the seized evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and REVERSED the decisions of the lower courts. The prosecution failed to prove the petitioners’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to breaks in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were not established with moral certainty. Only the arresting officers testified regarding the handling of the evidence. Critical links were missing: the desk officer who received the specimens, the investigator who marked them, and the forensic chemist who examined them were not presented in court. While the parties stipulated to dispense with the chemist’s testimony regarding the submission and result of the laboratory examination, this stipulation did not cover the crucial details of how the chemist received, handled, and analyzed the specimens to ensure their integrity. The mandatory procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs under Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules was not complied with, as there was no physical inventory or photograph of the seized items in the presence of the required witnesses. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove every element of the crime. The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers and the petitioners’ claims of frame-up were noted, but the decisive factor for acquittal was the failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody.