GR 180586; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180586 November 20, 2017
ARNELIO B. CALMA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Arnelio B. Calma was charged with illegal sale of shabu under Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended. The prosecution alleged that on March 6, 2002, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. PO2 Amel Padilla acted as poseur-buyer and claimed that Calma sold him a sachet of shabu in exchange for a marked ₱1,000.00 bill. Upon arrest, another sachet was allegedly found in Calma’s wallet. The seized items, weighing 0.23 grams total, tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Calma presented a different version, asserting he was at a beauty salon for a haircut when he was accosted by armed men, forcibly taken to the police station, and later framed. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both convicted him.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Calma. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty. The chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the prosecution to account for each link in the chain: seizure, marking, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist, and presentation in court. Here, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain. The testimony of PO2 Padilla revealed that after the seizure, he merely placed the two sachets in his pocket and later turned them over to the investigator at the police station. There was no testimony on who marked the items, when, and where. The forensic chemist also testified she received the items from an unknown police officer, not the investigator. This gap created reasonable doubt on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s failure to prove every element of the crime. Consequently, the petitioner is acquitted.