GR 203028; (January, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 203028 ; January 15, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSELITO BERAN y ZAPANTA @ “JOSE”, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution alleged that on August 26, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellant Joselito Beran in Tondo, Manila. A confidential informant pointed out Beran to PO3 Knowme Sia, the poseur-buyer. The informant introduced Sia to Beran, who then asked how much shabu was to be bought. Upon being told “piso lang” (₱100), Beran handed over a plastic sachet. Sia gave the marked money in exchange, executed the pre-arranged signal, and placed Beran under arrest. The seized item was marked and later confirmed by forensic examination to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Beran presented a different version, claiming he was resting at home when policemen forcibly arrested him without cause. He alleged that the officers demanded ₱20,000 for his release and, upon his failure to pay, fabricated the drug charge against him. The prosecution presented PO3 Sia, who testified on the buy-bust, and PO3 Francia, who acted as a look-out. Another team member’s testimony was dispensed with after a stipulation that he did not witness the transaction.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 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 accused-appellant Joselito Beran. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, which is crucial in proving the corpus delicti. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty, and every link in the chain—from seizure, marking, to presentation in court—must be duly recorded.
The buy-bust team committed glaring breaches of the procedure under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 . There was no evidence that the required physical inventory and photographing of the seized item were conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. PO3 Sia’s testimony only stated that he marked the item at the police station and later brought it to the crime laboratory. The prosecution offered no justification for these procedural lapses. The absence of these witnesses during inventory, coupled with the lack of any explanation for their non-compliance, fatally compromised the integrity of the evidence. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody warranted acquittal.