GR 190749; (April, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 190749; April 25, 2012
VALENTIN ZAFRA y DECHOSA and EROLL MARCELINO y REYES, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Valentin Zafra and Eroll Marcelino were charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution’s case rested solely on the testimony of SPO4 Apolinario Mendoza, who claimed that during a surveillance operation on June 12, 2003, he saw the petitioners and a companion, Marlon Daluz, engaged in apparent drug activity at a street corner. SPO4 Mendoza testified that he saw Zafra and Marcelino each holding plastic sachets of shabu, while Daluz held drug paraphernalia. He then single-handedly apprehended them, confiscated the items, and brought them to the police station.
The Regional Trial Court convicted the petitioners, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the illegality of their warrantless arrest, the inadmissibility of the seized drugs, non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, and the prosecution’s failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the petitioners for illegal possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED petitioners Zafra and Marcelino. The acquittal was grounded on the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs and the glaring inconsistencies in the testimony of the lone prosecution witness, SPO4 Mendoza, which created reasonable doubt.
The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. This requires strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165 to ensure the seized items are the same ones examined and presented in court. The prosecution failed in this duty. SPO4 Mendoza’s testimony revealed critical lapses: he marked the seized items only upon arrival at the police station, not immediately at the place of seizure, and there was no testimony on how the items were handled and preserved between the confiscation and their laboratory examination. Furthermore, the required witnesses (representatives from the media, the Department of Justice, and an elected public official) during the inventory and photography were not present.
More critically, the Court found SPO4 Mendoza’s testimony replete with material inconsistencies regarding who was holding which item (shabu or aluminum foil) during the arrest. These inconsistencies, which went into the very act of possession constituting the crime, cast serious doubt on the veracity of his entire account. The trial court’s reliance on his credibility was misplaced, as such factual findings are not binding when the testimony is fraught with contradictions. Consequently, the prosecution did not overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, warranting acquittal.