GR 191071; (August, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 191071; August 28, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, vs. ROGELIA JARDINEL PEPINO-CONSULTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Rogelia Jardinel Pepino-Consulta was charged with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on February 7, 2005, a buy-bust operation was conducted in San Fernando, Pampanga. PO2 Randy Dizon and PO3 Augusto Tiongco acted as back-up officers while a confidential informant transacted with accused-appellant. The informant handed marked money and received five plastic sachets. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the officers arrested accused-appellant and recovered the marked money from her. The seized sachets were turned over to the police station and later submitted to the crime laboratory, where Forensic Chemist P/Sr. Insp. Aylin Perez confirmed the contents to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Accused-appellant testified that on the said date, she was at a restaurant waiting for a friend when two men forcibly dragged her into a vehicle. She was brought to the police station, interrogated about a certain “Manang,” and was only shown the alleged drugs at the station. She denied selling any illegal drugs and claimed the case was fabricated.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellant for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court acquitted accused-appellant due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, which is crucial in proving the corpus delicti. The Court highlighted several broken links. First, the handling of the evidence between the arresting officers and the forensic chemist was not clearly accounted for. PO2 Dizon testified that PO3 Tiongco took the sachets from the informant, but PO3 Tiongco stated it was PO2 Dizon who did so. This inconsistency creates doubt on who initially possessed the evidence. Second, the forensic chemist, P/Sr. Insp. Perez, admitted she did not personally receive the specimens from the arresting officer but relied on a desk officer’s stamp. She also discarded the original container without noting its description, compromising the integrity of the evidence from the point of submission to the lab. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for these procedural lapses. In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State must prove with moral certainty the identity of the prohibited drug, as its unique characteristic makes it susceptible to tampering, substitution, or contamination. The unjustified deviations from the chain of custody protocol mandated by Section 21 of RA 9165 warranted accused-appellant’s acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt.