G.R. No. 181545, October 8, 2008
The People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Mark Dela Cruz, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Mark Dela Cruz was charged with illegal sale of shabu (violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165). The prosecution’s version, based on a buy-bust operation on July 16, 2003, in Caloocan City, states that a police team, with PO2 Eugene Amoyo as poseur-buyer, transacted with appellant for ₱200.00 worth of shabu. Appellant handed two plastic sachets to PO2 Amoyo, who gave marked money in exchange. Upon the pre-arranged signal, appellant was arrested. The seized sachets were marked by PO2 Amoyo at the police station and later confirmed by forensic examination to contain shabu. Appellant denied the charge, testifying that he was arrested while waiting for his brother in a plaza after policemen, who were looking for a certain “Amay,” handcuffed him when he could not provide information. His testimony was corroborated by his brother. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant, imposing life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling that the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved despite the marking being done at the police station and not immediately at the place of seizure as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti (the seized shabu) through an unbroken chain of custody.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED appellant Mark Dela Cruz. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, creating reasonable doubt as to their identity and integrity. The Court emphasized that in buy-bust operations, it is crucial to prove that the drugs submitted for examination and presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused. The chain of custody rule requires testimony on every link in the chain, from seizure to presentation in court, to prevent alteration, tampering, or substitution. In this case, the police officers committed significant breaches of the prescribed procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165: (1) The required physical inventory and photograph of the seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official were not complied with; and (2) More critically, the marking of the seized sachets—a vital first step in the custodial chain that should be done immediately upon seizure—was not done at the place of arrest but only later at the police station. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this deviation. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence and cannot substitute for the prosecution’s duty to prove an unbroken chain of custody. The failure to follow the procedure, without any explanation, compromised the integrity of the evidence. Consequently, the identity of the corpus delicti was not proven with moral certainty, warranting acquittal.