G.R. No. 186470, September 27, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WILLIE MIDENILLA Y ALABOSO, RICKY DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES AND ROBERTO DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES, Accused, RICKY DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES AND ROBERTO DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

On September 24, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Caloocan City based on a tip that brothers Ricky (“Hika”) and Roberto (“Obet”) Delos Santos were selling drugs. PO1 Ronel Ugot acted as poseur-buyer. Upon arrival, Roberto asked PO1 Ugot if he wanted to score, to which Ugot affirmed and handed marked money. Roberto gave the money to Ricky, who then retrieved a plastic sachet and gave it to Roberto, who in turn handed it to PO1 Ugot. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the team arrested the brothers. The buy-bust money was recovered from Ricky, and a subsequent search yielded six more plastic sachets from him. The seized items tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a different version, claiming the brothers were arbitrarily arrested while watching a video “carrera” at around 5:00 p.m., not during a buy-bust at 8:00 p.m. They alleged the police officers planted the evidence and that the marked money was not dusted with fluorescent powder, as the prosecution claimed only the hands were tested. The RTC convicted both brothers for violations of Sections 5 (sale) and 11 (possession) of R.A. No. 9165, a ruling affirmed with modification by the CA.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted both accused-appellants. The legal logic centered on the prosecution’s failure to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, a crucial element in drug cases. The Court found a broken chain of custody. While the police marked the items at the scene, there was no testimony from PO2 Randulfo Hipolito, the investigating officer who received the items at the police station. This gap created reasonable doubt about whether the items presented in court were the same ones seized from the appellants. The Court emphasized that every link in the chain, from seizure to presentation in court, must be accounted for to prevent evidence tampering or planting.
Furthermore, the prosecution’s evidence was inconsistent regarding the presence of fluorescent powder on the marked money, casting doubt on the buy-bust’s validity. The defense of frame-up, while inherently weak, gained traction due to these procedural lapses. The Court ruled that the presumption of regularity in police duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellants were acquitted and ordered immediately released.