GR 188698; (July, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188698, July 22, 2015
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Sonia Bernel Nuarin, Appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Sonia Bernel Nuarin, was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for the illegal sale of shabu. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimony of PO1 Roberto Manalo, was that a buy-bust operation was conducted on February 2, 2003, in Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City. PO1 Manalo acted as poseur-buyer and purchased a sachet of shabu from the appellant for ₱100.00. Upon his pre-arranged signal, the arrest team apprehended the appellant, and two additional sachets were allegedly found in her coin purse. The defense presented a different account, claiming the appellant was arrested at her home without a warrant, her house was searched, and she was later brought to the police station where the police attempted to extort money from her. The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellant of illegal sale and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine, while acquitting her of illegal possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti through an unbroken chain of custody.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the appellant. The prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to serious breaches in the chain of custody rule, which compromised the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. Specifically, the lone prosecution witness, PO1 Manalo, gave conflicting testimonies on who marked the seized sachets—first stating it was the desk officer, then later claiming he did it himself. The records also failed to show that the marking was done in the presence of the appellant immediately upon confiscation, as required. Furthermore, the subsequent links in the chain were not established: the identity of the desk officer was never revealed, and it was unclear who had custody of the drugs before they were submitted to the crime laboratory and who delivered them there. These gaps created reasonable doubt as to whether the illegal drug presented in court was the same one allegedly seized from the appellant. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody.