GR 185378; (September, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 185378; September 27, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JENNEFER CARIN y DONOGA @ MAE-ANN, Appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Jennefer Carin was charged with the illegal sale of 0.02 grams of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted on November 27, 2003, in Makati City. A poseur-buyer purchased the drug from appellant using a marked ₱100 bill. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the arresting team apprehended appellant and recovered the marked money. The seized plastic sachet was marked and later tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant denied the accusation, claiming she was framed. She testified that she was forcibly taken from her home by men in civilian clothes, handcuffed, and later presented with a sachet of shabu she had never possessed.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly highlighting the operatives’ non-compliance with proper procedure.
ISSUE
Did the prosecution successfully prove the guilt of the appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered appellant’s immediate release. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drug, which is crucial in proving the corpus delicti. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity and integrity of the seized substance must be preserved with moral certainty. Here, the apprehending team admitted to not photographing the seized item immediately after seizure and confiscation, as strictly required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. This procedural lapse was not justified.
Furthermore, the chain of custody was broken. The testimony revealed that the seized item was not immediately turned over to the investigating officer or the forensic chemist. Instead, it was handled by a MADAC operative not part of the buy-bust team, and the evidence submitted for laboratory examination was done by a person not identified as part of the arresting unit. These gaps in the custody trail created reasonable doubt as to whether the item presented in court was the same one allegedly seized from appellant. 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, including the integrity of the evidence.