G.R. No. 195528 ; July 24, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE CLARA y BUHAIN, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jose Clara y Buhain was convicted for violating Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act) following a buy-bust operation. The prosecution, through PO3 Ramos, alleged that acting as a poseur-buyer, he purchased a plastic sachet of shabu from the appellant for PHP 200.00. The transaction occurred at the appellant’s house, where he received the marked money, obtained the sachet from his niece “Ningning,” and handed it to PO3 Ramos, leading to his arrest. The seized item was marked and later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a stark denial, claiming the appellant was asleep when police officers forcibly entered his home, arrested him without cause, and failed to inform him of his constitutional rights. Crucially, the prosecution’s narrative was marred by significant inconsistencies among its witnesses. PO3 Ramos, SPO2 Nagera, and PO1 Jimenez gave conflicting testimonies regarding the informant’s gender, the number of vehicles used, the identity of who marked the seized drugs, and who had custody of the sachet immediately after the seizure. SPO2 Nagera also failed to positively identify the appellant in court.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the material inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and the alleged lapses in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused-appellant. The conviction was reversed due to the prosecution’s failure to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty, requiring an unbroken chain of custody. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were replete with irreconcilable contradictions on material points: the informant’s gender, the number of vehicles, the marking of the evidence, and its immediate custodian. These inconsistencies eroded the credibility of the buy-bust operation’s story and cast serious doubt on the integrity of the seized item, which is the corpus delicti of the crime.
Furthermore, the Court found lapses in the chain of custody. The prosecution failed to clearly account for who had possession of the drugs from the moment of seizure until its marking at the police station. PO3 Ramos testified the sachet was with PO1 Jimenez from the scene, while SPO2 Nagera said PO3 Ramos held it first. Such uncertainty breaches the strict custodial requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, designed to prevent evidence tampering. The presumption of regularity in police duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence when the evidence is fraught with doubt. Consequently, the failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody and the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt warrants acquittal.