GR 185386; (November, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 185386; November 21, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BERNABE ANESLAG y ANDRADE and JOCELYN CONCEPCION y LAO, Accused-Appellants.
FACTS
On March 30, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted by PDEA operatives at Patria Pension in Iligan City. Acting as poseur-buyer, SPO2 George Salo, together with a confidential agent, checked into Room 65. After a series of meetings with accused Mae Elarmo, Bernabe Aneslag, and Menda Aneslag, accused Jocelyn Concepcion arrived and handed a red bag to SPO2 Salo. The bag contained six plastic sachets of suspected shabu. Upon receiving the boodle money from Salo, Bernabe Aneslag was arrested along with the other accused. The seized items were marked at the PDEA office, and a request for laboratory examination was prepared.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Bernabe Aneslag and Jocelyn Concepcion of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs and that the evidence was insufficient to prove conspiracy.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and acquitted the accused-appellants. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which is crucial in drug cases. The arresting officer, SPO2 Salo, testified that he marked the seized items at the PDEA office. However, the forensic chemist, P/Insp. Mary Leocy Jabonillo-Mag-abo, stated that she received the items from a certain SPO3 Cabahug, not from SPO2 Salo. This discrepancy created a significant gap in the chain.
The Court emphasized that the prosecution must account for each link in the chain: from seizure, to marking, to turnover to the investigating officer, to the forensic laboratory, and finally to the court. The unexplained transfer from SPO2 Salo to SPO3 Cabahug, without testimony from SPO3 Cabahug himself, compromised the integrity of the evidence. This break in the chain raised reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from the appellants. Consequently, the presumption of innocence prevailed, warranting acquittal.