GR 200951; (September, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 200951 ; September 5, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JOSE ALMODIEL alias “DO DONG ASTROBAL,” Appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s case stemmed from a buy-bust operation on March 20, 2003, in Butuan City. Based on a tip, PDEA agents designated PO2 Virtudazo as the poseur-buyer. PO2 Virtudazo, accompanied by a confidential informant, met appellant Jose Almodiel. After being introduced as a buyer, PO2 Virtudazo handed P400.00 in exchange for two sachets of suspected shabu. Upon consummation of the sale, PO2 Virtudazo gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to Almodiel’s arrest. The seized items were marked and later confirmed by the crime laboratory to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. The prosecution presented the buy-bust team members and the forensic chemist to establish the chain of custody.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Almodiel claimed he was framed. He testified that on the day in question, he was at a lodging house and later on his motorcycle when he was accosted by PO3 Lumawag, who pointed a gun at him. He alleged that the police officers planted the two sachets of shabu—one supposedly found during a body search and another from his wallet at the PDEA office. He insisted the buy-bust never occurred and that the evidence was fabricated.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Almodiel’s guilt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Jose Almodiel. The conviction was reversed due to the prosecution’s failure to comply with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 , which created reasonable doubt on the integrity of the seized drugs. The law requires that immediately after seizure, a physical inventory and photographing of the drugs be done in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The Court found that the prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground for its non-compliance. The testimony revealed that the required witnesses were not present at the time of seizure and marking but arrived only later at the PDEA office. This procedural lapse breached the chain of custody.
Crucially, the prosecution failed to establish who had possession of the drugs from the time of the buy-bust until the marking at the PDEA office. The testimonies were inconsistent on whether PO2 Virtudazo or PO3 Lumawag had initial custody, and there was no clear account of the transfer. This gap, coupled with the absence of the required witnesses during the critical initial custody, compromised the identity of the corpus delicti. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence when the procedures safeguarding the evidence are not observed. Consequently, the integrity of the evidence was tainted, warranting acquittal.