G.R. No. 186390 ; October 2, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROSEMARIE R. SALONGA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rosemarie R. Salonga was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of PO1 Teresita Reyes, who acted as the poseur-buyer. She testified that a buy-bust operation was conducted on July 31, 2002, wherein she handed marked money to Salonga in exchange for two plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance. Upon her signal, back-up officers arrested Salonga and purportedly recovered the buy-bust money. The seized items were marked and later confirmed by forensic examination to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Salonga presented a starkly different version, claiming she was a victim of a frame-up. She testified that police officers forcibly entered her home, dragged her to the police station, and only there did they present shabu, falsely alleging it came from her. She further alleged that the officers later solicited money to settle the case. The Regional Trial Court acquitted her of illegal possession due to insufficient evidence but convicted her for illegal sale, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, particularly in establishing the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti through an unbroken chain of custody.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Salonga. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty, requiring an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court. The prosecution failed to meet this burden. Critical gaps existed in the chain: PO1 Reyes testified that she marked the seized sachets only upon reaching the police station, not immediately at the place of seizure as required by Section 21 of RA 9165. Furthermore, no testimony or evidence detailed how the evidence was handled, stored, and transferred from the police to the forensic chemist. The stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist merely confirmed the substance was shabu but did not account for its custody prior to examination.
These procedural lapses created reasonable doubt regarding whether the shabu presented in court was the same item allegedly seized from Salonga. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence, especially when the prosecution’s evidence on the integrity of the corpus delicti is compromised. Consequently, the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.