G.R. No. 202701 , September 10, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDILBERTO BALIBAY y LABIS and MARICEL BALIBAY BIJA-AN, Defendant-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Edilberto Balibay and Maricel Balibay Bija-an were convicted by the Regional Trial Court for violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). In Criminal Case No. 2004-469, they were charged with illegal sale of one plastic sachet containing 0.09 gram of shabu. In Criminal Case No. 2004-470, Maricel was charged with illegal possession of another sachet containing 0.10 gram of shabu. The prosecution’s version was that a buy-bust operation occurred on June 16, 2004, where PO1 Cotta Tanggote, acting as poseur-buyer, received a sachet from Maricel. Upon arrest, the marked money was recovered from Edilberto, and a second sachet was recovered from Maricel. The defense claimed they were framed; Maricel alleged she was asked by a friend to buy shabu from a supplier named Elsa Budiongan as part of an entrapment against Budiongan, and when Budiongan could not be found, the police arrested them instead. The RTC and the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, giving weight to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, specifically by establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti (the seized illegal drugs) through an unbroken chain of custody and compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the decisions of the lower courts and ACQUITTED the accused-appellants. The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti with moral certainty. The testimony of PO1 Tanggote revealed critical gaps: he could not identify who placed certain markings on the evidence presented in court, could not recall details about the packaging of the seized item, and stated he did not care about the whereabouts of the cellophane container. This failure to prove that the substance seized from the accused was the very same substance offered in court created reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the arresting officers failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding inventory and photographing of the seized items without any justifiable reason. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody and the identity of the prohibited drug. Consequently, the accused-appellants were acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.