GR 182418; (May, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182418 ; May 8, 2009
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. EDWIN PARTOZA y EVORA, Appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Edwin Partoza was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that on November 2, 2002, a buy-bust operation was conducted in San Mateo, Rizal, where PO3 Juanito Tougan acted as poseur-buyer. PO3 Tougan testified that he bought one plastic sachet of shabu from appellant for a marked ₱100 bill and, upon arrest, recovered another sachet from him. The seized items were marked and later confirmed positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was merely driving his tricycle when apprehended by police officers who were responding to an unrelated commotion involving another individual.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant for both charges, crediting the police testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, upholding the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation and the subsequent search.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED appellant. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity and integrity of the seized drugs must be established with moral certainty, following the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution failed to comply with this procedure. PO3 Tougan admitted that the seized items were marked only at the police station, not immediately at the place of arrest. There was no testimony on who had custody of the drugs between the seizure and the marking, nor was there a physical inventory or photograph of the evidence taken in the presence of appellant or his representatives.
These lapses in procedure compromised the integrity of the evidence, creating reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from appellant. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot apply where, as here, the police deviated from standard protocols without justifiable reason. Consequently, the prosecution did not overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.