G.R. No. 199813 , June 26, 2019
People of the Philippines vs. Allan Bermejo y De Guzman

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Allan Bermejo, was charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . The prosecution’s case stemmed from a buy-bust operation on February 12, 2003, where a civilian asset allegedly purchased two plastic sachets of shabu from Bermejo using marked money. The arresting officers testified that they witnessed the transaction from a nearby van. Upon the pre-arranged signal, they arrested Bermejo, seized the items, and later marked them at the police station. An inventory was purportedly conducted in the presence of required witnesses, and a laboratory examination confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Bermejo presented a different version, claiming he was merely buying food when police officers arbitrarily arrested him. He denied any involvement in a drug sale. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this conviction. Bermejo appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and identity of the seized drugs due to breaches in the chain of custody.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs to prove Bermejo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision and acquitted Bermejo. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the identity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody. This procedure ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items from the moment of seizure until their presentation in court. The Court found critical gaps in the chain of custody.
First, there was a break immediately after the seizure. The testifying officer, PO3 Rodillo, stated he received the seized items from the poseur-buyer at the police station, not at the place of arrest. This created uncertainty about who had physical custody of the drugs between the arrest and their marking at the station. Second, the prosecution failed to account for the movement of the evidence from the police investigator to the court. No testimony detailed who transported the drugs from the police station to the crime laboratory or from the laboratory to the court. The forensic chemist who examined the items did not testify; another chemist presented the report without personal knowledge of the examination’s integrity. These unexplained gaps compromised the identity of the evidence presented. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove Bermejo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting his acquittal.