GR 197250; (July, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 197250 ; July 17, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA y HANDAYA, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received information that accused-appellant Reynaldo Somoza was engaged in selling shabu. After surveillance and a successful test buy, authorities secured a search warrant for his residence. On July 21, 2005, before serving the warrant, the team learned Somoza was elsewhere. They then planned a buy-bust operation. P01 Marcelina Bautista, acting as a poseur-buyer, met Somoza at an agreed location. Inside a friend’s house, she bought ₱1,000 worth of shabu (two sachets) from him using marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the backup team moved in. Somoza attempted to flee, throwing away some marked bills and a metallic tube, but was apprehended. A search incident to arrest yielded a coin purse in his pocket containing six more sachets of shabu.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly with respect to the chain of custody of the seized items.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which is crucial in proving the identity and integrity of the seized drugs—the corpus delicti of the offenses. The Court found a significant gap in the first link of the chain: the marking of the evidence. While the apprehending officer, NBI Agent Chester Celon, testified he marked the items immediately after arrest, the testimony of the poseur-buyer, P01 Bautista, created serious doubt. She stated that after the buy-bust, she kept the purchased sachet in her pocket and only handed it over to the investigator at the police station. This directly contradicts the claim of immediate marking at the scene. The law requires marking to be done at the time of seizure or as soon as practicable to prevent switching, planting, or contamination. The inconsistent testimonies regarding when and where the critical initial marking was performed breached the chain of custody. Without proof that the items presented in court were the very same ones seized from the accused, his guilt cannot be sustained. The presumption of innocence prevails when the integrity of the evidence is compromised. Consequently, the Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts.