G.R. No. 192188 ; April 11, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANDREW ROBLE, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed accusing Andrew Roble of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for selling and delivering two plastic packets of shabu weighing 0.06 gram for P300.00 in a buy-bust operation on March 12, 2003, in Danao City. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimony of PO2 Castor Laurel, was that a buy-bust team was formed after receiving information about the illegal drug activities of a certain “Jojo” Roble. The poseur-buyer, Abner Banzon Cuizon, approached the accused, handed him money, and received plastic sachets. Upon Cuizon’s pre-arranged signal, the police moved in, but the accused fled. Cuizon then handed the sachets to PO3 Casas, who turned them over to the investigator. The substance was later confirmed as shabu by the crime laboratory. The defense presented Roble, who interposed denial and alibi, claiming he was in Leyte from March 11 to June 14, 2003, working at a piggery, and that Cuizon was his enemy who framed him. The Regional Trial Court found Roble guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Roble appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and irregularities in the buy-bust operation and chain of custody.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, particularly the identity of the seller and the integrity of the corpus delicti.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Andrew Roble. The appeal was meritorious. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of the crime. Specifically, the identity of the seller was not established with moral certainty. The prosecution’s sole eyewitness, PO2 Laurel, testified from a distance of seven meters at dusk and did not personally know the accused before the operation. His identification was further undermined by the immediate flight of the suspect and the failure to apprehend him at the scene. The poseur-buyer, Cuizon, was not presented as a witness, creating a gap in the evidence regarding the actual transaction and the identity of the seller. The Court also noted a broken chain in the custody of the seized drugs. The required physical inventory and photographing of the evidence under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not complied with, and there was no showing of any justifiable ground for such non-compliance. 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 establish an unbroken chain of custody. Consequently, the guilt of the accused was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.