G.R. No. 188328; August 25, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JOSELITO NASARA y DAHAY, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Joselito Nasara was convicted by the RTC for violating Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs). The prosecution alleged that on March 16, 2004, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Quezon City. SPO2 Dionco, as poseur-buyer, handed marked money to appellant, who then entered a house with a companion named Kune. Kune later handed a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to SPO2 Dionco. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the backup team moved in. Appellant was apprehended after a chase, and the marked money was recovered from his pocket. Two additional sachets were allegedly found inside the house. The seized items were later examined and found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellant denied the accusation, claiming he was framed. He testified that he was merely resting inside a house when armed men apprehended him without cause. The trial court and the Court of Appeals rejected his defense, giving credence to the police officers’ testimonies and convicting him.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED appellant. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules mandate specific procedural safeguards, including the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a media representative, a Department of Justice official, and an elected public official.
The prosecution failed to prove compliance with these mandatory procedures. There was no evidence presented that the required inventory was conducted in the presence of the specified witnesses. The police merely turned over the seized items to the desk officer and later to the crime laboratory. This unexplained deviation from the statutory procedure compromised the integrity of the evidence. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot apply when there is a clear disregard of standard operating procedures. Consequently, the prosecution failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The guilt of the appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt due to the broken chain of custody over the seized drugs.