GR 202709; (July, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 202709 ; July 3, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, vs. ROMEO ONIZA Y ONG AND MERCY ONIZA Y CABARLE, APPELLANTS.
FACTS
The accused-spouses were charged with possession and sale of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on a tip. A police asset allegedly bought shabu from Mercy, who handed the marked money to Romeo, who then provided the drugs. Upon the signal, police officers moved in, but the accused ran into their house and locked the door. The officers forced entry, arrested them, and claimed to have recovered several plastic sachets of shabu and the marked money. The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming they were arrested at their home without a warrant, their relative was mauled, and the police attempted to extort money from them. The RTC convicted the spouses, and the CA affirmed the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused. The ruling hinged on the prosecution’s failure to establish the integrity and identity of the seized drugs due to non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The Court emphasized that the procedure—immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official—is a crucial safeguard against abuse and planting of evidence. The police officers offered no justification for their complete failure to conduct the inventory and photography in the presence of the required witnesses. Furthermore, the prosecution stipulated that the forensic chemist could not testify on the source and origin of the specimens she examined, creating a fatal break in the chain of custody. Without proof that the items presented in court were the very same substances seized from the accused, their identity and integrity remained questionable. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s clear failure to prove an essential element of the crime.