G.R. No. 184761 ; September 8, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JULIUS GADIANA y REPOLLO, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Julius Gadiana was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act). The prosecution alleged that on February 7, 2004, police officers conducting a saturation drive in Cebu City chanced upon appellant holding two plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance. The officers immediately apprehended him, confiscated the sachets, and brought him to their office. The items were later submitted to the crime laboratory, which confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride. The lone prosecution witness, PO1 Julius Busico, adopted his joint affidavit as his direct testimony.
Appellant denied the accusation, claiming he was merely walking in his neighborhood when PO1 Busico, whom he recognized from previous patrols, accosted him, uttered “This is the one,” held his arms, and dipped into his pocket. He suggested he would retrieve the items himself, which angered the officer, leading to his immediate handcuffing. He specifically denied holding any sachets. The trial court convicted him, crediting the police officer’s positive testimony and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty over appellant’s bare denial.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the appellant for illegal possession of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted appellant. The conviction was primarily based on PO1 Busico’s adoption of his joint affidavit as his direct testimony. The Court ruled this was a fatal procedural error. A witness must testify based on personal knowledge in open court, subject to cross-examination. By merely adopting the affidavit, the prosecution deprived the defense of its right to cross-examine the witness on the details and circumstances surrounding the arrest and seizure as narrated in the affidavit. The affidavit itself is hearsay and cannot be considered as substantive evidence. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti through competent evidence.
Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody. The testimony revealed that PO2 Erwin Ferrer prepared the request for examination and brought the evidence to the lab, but he was not presented as a witness. There was no testimony on how the evidence was handled, preserved, and transferred from the arresting officers to PO2 Ferrer and then to the forensic chemist. This gap breached the chain of custody, casting doubt on the integrity and identity of the drugs allegedly seized from appellant. Given these critical lapses in proving the elements of the offense, the presumption of innocence prevails. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the State’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and to comply with the chain of custody rule mandates acquittal.