GR 188900; (March, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188900 , March 5, 2010
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Fernando Habana y Orante, Appellant.
FACTS
On July 17, 2003, based on an informant’s tip, police officers conducted a buy-bust operation against Fernando Habana. PO1 Fortunato Paras acted as the poseur-buyer and purchased one plastic sachet of suspected shabu from Habana using marked money. Upon Paras’s signal, Habana was arrested. A search yielded two more plastic sachets and the marked money. The arresting officers turned over Habana and the seized items to PO3 Fernando Moran, the investigator on duty, who marked them and submitted them to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Erickson Calabocal examined the substance, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the testimonies of the forensic chemist and the investigating officer regarding the examination and handling of the evidence. The Regional Trial Court convicted Habana for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Habana appealed, claiming the prosecution’s failure to present the forensic chemist and police investigator was fatal and that the chain of custody of the seized drugs was not established.
ISSUE
1. Whether the prosecution’s failure to present the forensic chemist and the police investigator is fatal to its case.
2. Whether the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the seized substance along the chain of custody.
RULING
1. No, the failure to present the forensic chemist and police investigator was not fatal. The prosecution has discretion on which witnesses to present. The non-presentation of the informant is not prejudicial as his testimony would be merely corroborative. Regarding the forensic chemist and investigator, the parties stipulated at pre-trial on the substance of their testimonies, namely that the specimens were submitted and examined, and the result was positive for shabu. Therefore, it was too late for the accused to impugn the veracity of the laboratory report.
2. Yes, the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the seized substance, warranting acquittal. While substantial, not perfect, adherence to the chain of custody rule under R.A. 9165 is required, the prosecution must show justifiable reason for any lapse and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Here, the prosecution failed to show how the seized items changed hands from the seizure to their presentation in court. There was no evidence on what the investigator did with the seized articles, how they reached the laboratory, or how they were stored. The police officers offered no explanation for their failure to observe the chain of custody rule, such as marking and sealing the plastic containers to prevent tampering. This failure compromised the identity and integrity of the seized items, which constitute the corpus delicti of the crimes. Consequently, the accused is acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court, and ACQUITTED Fernando Habana y Orante.