GR 180447; (August, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180447. August 23, 2017.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FERNANDO GERONIMO Y AGUSTINE, ALIAS “NANDING BAKULAW”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
The prosecution alleged that on September 4, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellant Fernando Geronimo in Pasig City. A confidential informant pointed him out to PO1 Janet Sabo, the designated poseur-buyer. The informant handed Geronimo marked money for PHP 200.00 worth of shabu. Geronimo entered his house, returned with a plastic sachet, and handed it to PO1 Sabo. Upon the pre-arranged signal, arresting officers moved in. PO1 Sabo marked the seized sachet with her initials “JAS” at the scene. The substance was later confirmed by the PNP Crime Laboratory to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a different version. Geronimo testified he was watching television at his sister’s house when police officers arrived asking for a certain “Bombong Taba.” After being told he was not that person, the officers left. His niece later informed him police were searching his nearby house. When he went to investigate, he was apprehended. He denied selling drugs and claimed the evidence was fabricated.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, particularly by establishing an unbroken chain of custody over the seized item.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Geronimo. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the State bears the burden of proving an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the integrity and identity of the seized drugs. The procedure under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the immediate 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 failed to justify significant lapses in this procedure. The records showed no physical inventory or photograph of the seized drugs was conducted at the place of arrest or at the police station. There was also no testimony or evidence showing that the required witnesses were present during these post-seizure steps. The prosecution offered no explanation for these omissions. The mere marking of the item at the scene by PO1 Sabo was insufficient to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti from the time of seizure until its presentation in court. Without the State justifying these lapses, the chain of custody was deemed broken, creating reasonable doubt on whether the item presented in court was the same one allegedly seized from the accused. Consequently, Geronimo’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting his acquittal and immediate release.