GR 183849; (June, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183849; June 11, 2011
DOMINGO M. ULEP, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Domingo Ulep was charged with aggravated illegal possession of shabu. Prosecution witnesses PO2 Elizer Tuzon and SPO3 Rogelio Labutong testified that on May 8, 2005, acting on a report that Ulep bought shabu from a certain Maria Karen Cacayorin’s house, they were dispatched to the area. They saw Ulep walking on the street holding a plastic sachet, approached him, and seized two plastic sachets of suspected shabu. Ulep was arrested, and the seized items were turned over to SPO2 Ramon Butay at the police station, who then submitted them to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for shabu. Ulep denied the charge, claiming he was in the area to claim a package from his mother. He alleged that after being initially frisked and released by PO2 Tuzon, he was re-apprehended after a certain Monmel Corpuz waved a plastic sachet, which Tuzon then claimed belonged to Ulep. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Ulep, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
1. Whether the CA erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite inconsistencies.
2. Whether the CA erred in not excluding the seized shabu due to the prosecution’s failure to prove the chain of custody.
3. Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s judgment of conviction.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the decisions of the CA and RTC, and ACQUITTED Domingo Ulep on the ground of reasonable doubt.
1. On the Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The Court found the inconsistencies in the testimonies of PO2 Tuzon and SPO3 Labutong to be irreconcilable and serious, not minor. Discrepancies included: the source of the tip (Tuzon received it directly from an asset; Labutong said the Chief Police Inspector relayed it); prior knowledge of Ulep (Labutong claimed Ulep had been under surveillance for a month; Tuzon stated they only knew him after apprehension); and the vehicle used (Tuzon said a tricycle; Labutong said a patrol car). These inconsistencies indicated poor fabrication, not mere memory lapses, and destroyed the witnesses’ credibility.
2. On the Chain of Custody: The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. There was a lapse in the prompt marking of the seized plastic sachets. The officers could not agree on who marked the items (Tuzon testified Labutong did it; Labutong said SPO2 Butay did). Marking is vital as the starting point of the custodial link. This failure cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti, as it could not be ensured that the specimens presented in court were the same ones seized from Ulep.
3. On the Conviction: Due to the irreconcilable inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies and the broken chain of custody, the integrity and identity of the seized drugs were compromised. Consequently, Ulep’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. The Court ordered his immediate release unless detained for another lawful cause.