G.R. No. 200915, February 12, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. MERLITA PALOMARES y COSTUNA, Appellant.

FACTS

On March 16, 2007, based on an informant’s tip, a police team conducted a buy-bust operation at Paradise Heights, Balut, Tondo, Manila, targeting a certain “Inday Kirat,” later identified as appellant Merlita Palomares. PO2 Reynaldo Mallari acted as the poseur-buyer. According to the prosecution, Mallari approached Merlita, who was outside Unit 52, Building 8. After a conversation using code words, Mallari handed marked money to Merlita, who then went inside her unit and returned with a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which she gave to Mallari. Upon Mallari’s signal, the team arrested Merlita. PO2 Mallari stated that he placed the marking “MCP” on the seized sachet and later turned it over to P/Insp. John Guiagui at the police station, who forwarded it to the crime laboratory. The substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The Regional Trial Court of Manila found Merlita guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs) and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
The defense presented a different version. Merlita testified that she was arrested at her shanty in Pier 18, Dumpsite, Vitas, Tondo, at around 5:00 a.m. on March 16, 2007, after being roused from sleep by police officers, including PO2 Mallari. She claimed she was accused of selling drugs based on the word of a certain Teresa and was brought to the police station where she was told to pay money to avoid a case. Her live-in partner, Rolando Palomares, corroborated her testimony. Barangay Kagawad Louie Lizano testified that he saw police officers enter Merlita’s shanty and arrest her on that date.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction, i.e., whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Merlita Palomares sold dangerous drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the appeal, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the judgments of conviction, and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Merlita Palomares.
The Court ruled that for a conviction of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug seized must be established with moral certainty. This requires proof of an unbroken chain of custody, which as a minimum demands that the police mark the seized item (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon confiscation. While marking may be done at the nearest police station, the evidence in this case was unclear and deficient on these crucial points.
First, the evidence was unclear as to where the seized substance was marked and whether it was done in Merlita’s presence. Second, the testimonies of the police officers were conflicting as to which officer actually performed the marking (PO2 Mallari or PO2 Flores), creating uncertainty about a vital element of the crime. Third, the prosecution failed to establish compliance with the required witnesses and procedures under Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The police officers did not testify that they conducted a physical inventory or took photographs of the seized item in the presence of the accused or required witnesses (e.g., a media representative, a DOJ official, and an elected public official). Their joint affidavit of arrest also made no mention of such inventory or photographing, and they offered no justification for these omissions.
Furthermore, the testimony of Barangay Kagawad Louie Lizano, a neutral party, who stated he saw the arrest at Merlita’s shanty in a different location (Pier 18, Dumpsite), directly contradicted the prosecution’s claim that the buy-bust and arrest happened at Unit 52, Paradise Heights. While the defense of denial and alibi is weak, it does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody and to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards created reasonable doubt as to the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, appellant’s acquittal was warranted.