G.R. No. 199901 ; October 9, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GARYZALDY GUZON, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Garyzaldy Guzon was charged with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . The prosecution’s case, anchored on the testimony of PO2 Elyzer Tuzon, was that a buy-bust operation was conducted on November 22, 2005, in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. A police asset, acting as poseur-buyer, handed marked money to Guzon in exchange for a plastic sachet. Upon the pre-arranged signal, police officers arrested Guzon, recovered the marked money from him, and retrieved the sachet from the asset. The sachet was marked, inventoried, and later confirmed by forensic examination to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a starkly different narrative. Guzon testified that he was having a drinking session when he was invited by police officers to the municipal hall under a pretext. He denied any sale, alleging the evidence was fabricated. He claimed he was later brought to a police camp where an officer produced a sachet from his pocket, and that he was shown photocopies of marked money the following day. His friend and brother corroborated his account of being taken from a social gathering.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully proved Guzon’s guilt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted Garyzaldy Guzon. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the prosecution must establish with moral certainty the identity of the prohibited drug, which is the corpus delicti of the offense. This requires an unbroken chain of custody over the seized item from the moment of seizure, marking, inventory, and examination. The Court found a critical break in this chain. The prosecution failed to present the testimony of the forensic chemist, PSI Mary Ann Cayabyab, and the evidence custodian, PO3 Nolie Domingo, as their testimonies were merely stipulated upon. The stipulation did not affirm that the specimen examined was the very same item seized from Guzon; the defense explicitly admitted the stipulation “without admitting that the specimen came from the accused.” This failure to positively establish the crucial link between the item allegedly sold and the item chemically analyzed created reasonable doubt. 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 every element of the crime. Consequently, the guilt of the accused-appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.