G.R. No. 199689, March 12, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Hermanos Constantino, Jr. y Binayug, a.k.a. “Jojit,” Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Hermanos Constantino, Jr. was charged with illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under Republic Act No. 9165. On January 20, 2005, a buy-bust team was formed in Tuguegarao City after a confidential informant reported that a certain “Jojit” was selling illegal drugs. PO3 Domingo acted as the poseur-buyer. The team proceeded to Reynovilla St., Caritan Centro. Constantino arrived, and PO3 Domingo asked if he was Jojit and if he had “stuff.” After Constantino confirmed his identity and asked how much was wanted, PO3 Domingo handed over marked money totaling ₱1,000.00, and Constantino handed over two plastic sachets. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the team arrested Constantino and recovered the marked money from him. The seized items were marked, inventoried in the police blotter, and later submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where the sachets tested positive for shabu and the money tested positive for fluorescent powder. Constantino denied the accusation, claiming he was framed. He testified that he was merely on a joyride, was accosted by men in civilian clothes, forced into a vehicle, and brought to the police station where the drugs and money were produced. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs in compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED the accused-appellant. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, which is crucial in proving the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found gaps in the chain: (1) There was no testimony on who marked the seized sachets with “A-1” and “A-2” and when and where this was done. The testimony of PO3 Domingo only stated that the investigator marked them, but the investigator did not testify. (2) There was no testimony on the handling and transfer of the evidence between the arresting officer, the investigator, and the forensic chemist. The forensic chemist testified she received the items from a certain SPO2 Tamang, but there was no testimony from SPO2 Tamang or any other officer detailing the transfer. (3) The prosecution did not offer a justifiable reason for these procedural lapses. The police blotter entry and the request for laboratory examination were insufficient to prove an unbroken chain. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs were not properly preserved, warranting acquittal.