G.R. No. 189980 ; April 6, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALBERTO BACUS ALCUIZAR, Defendant-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Alberto Bacus Alcuizar, was charged with multiple violations of Republic Act No. 9165 , including illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 in Criminal Case No. CBU-66345. The Information alleged that on June 15, 2003, in Carcar, Cebu, he unlawfully possessed 26 heat-sealed plastic packets containing a total of 0.52 grams of white crystalline substance, one heat-sealed plastic pack containing 10.26 grams, two strips of tin foil with traces of white crystalline powder, and one heat-sealed packet containing 0.02 gram, all of which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). He pleaded not guilty. During a pre-trial conference, the defense admitted the genuineness of the Forensic Chemistry Report, dispensing with the forensic chemist’s testimony. The prosecution’s lone witness, SPO1 Meliton Agadier, testified that a buy-bust operation was conducted against the appellant. After witnessing a sale, the police pursued and arrested the appellant. Subsequently, they searched his house pursuant to a warrant, recovering the aforementioned items in the presence of a barangay captain, a barangay tanod, and photographers. A receipt for the seized items was prepared and signed by these witnesses. The items were initially in the custody of SPO1 Navales, then turned over to SPO1 Agadier for marking at the police station. SPO1 Agadier prepared the request for laboratory examination, and SPO1 Navales delivered the items to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which confirmed the presence of shabu. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 17 of Cebu City, acquitted the appellant of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia in a related case but convicted him for illegal possession of shabu, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The appellant appealed, arguing, among other things, a broken chain of custody because the items were not marked immediately upon confiscation but only at the police station.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, particularly considering the alleged break in the chain of custody of the seized items.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions under RA 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti (the dangerous drug) must be preserved with moral certainty. The chain of custody rule is crucial to ensure that the illegal drug presented in court is the same one seized from the accused. This rule requires that the marking of seized items—the first link in the chain—should ideally be done immediately upon confiscation and in the presence of the apprehended violator to prevent switching, planting, or contamination. In this case, SPO1 Agadier admitted that the seized items were marked only at the police station, not at the place of seizure. This failure to mark immediately upon confiscation constituted a significant break in the chain of custody. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this procedural lapse. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty could not prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody. Therefore, the prosecution did not establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.