GR 201293; (June, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 201293, June 19, 2019
Joel A. Largo, Petitioner vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent
FACTS
Petitioner Joel A. Largo was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on November 28, 2005, barangay tanods, acting on a tip about a pot session, apprehended Largo at the Carbon Public Market. Barangay Tanod Vicente Bosque testified that Largo, upon seeing him, flicked away a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Bosque arrested Largo, retrieved the sachet, and later turned it over at the police station, where it was marked and subsequently examined, testing positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Largo presented a different account, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested on November 27, 2005, while waiting for a jeepney, and was detained without being informed of any charge or his rights. He denied the alleged possession and flicking of a sachet. The Regional Trial Court convicted Largo, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The lower courts ruled that while the chain of custody was not strictly observed, the integrity of the seized item was preserved.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, particularly by establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti through an unbroken chain of custody as required under Republic Act No. 9165.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED Joel A. Largo. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty. It is imperative to prove an unbroken chain of custody to ensure that the substance seized from the accused is the very same substance presented in court. The procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165, including the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of insulating witnesses, is crucial to prevent planting, contamination, or switching of evidence.
The Court found that the prosecution failed to account for crucial links in the chain. After Barangay Tanod Bosque retrieved the sachet, there was no evidence showing who had custody of it during the transport to the police station or immediately before it was turned over to the investigator. The testimony did not establish that Bosque maintained exclusive and continuous possession. Furthermore, the prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground for the deviation from the witness requirement under Section 21. The absence of an unbroken chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, Largo’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.