G.R. No. 203434 , July 23, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARCELINO VITERBO y REALUBIT and RONALD VITERBO y REALUBIT, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

On March 4, 2003, a confidential informant reported illegal drug peddling in Barangay Tinago, Ligao City, Albay. A buy-bust team was formed, with SPO4 Fernando Cardona as poseur-buyer using a marked ₱500 bill. The team proceeded to the target area near accused-appellants’ house. SPO4 Cardona and the informant approached Marcelino and Ronald Viterbo. Cardona handed the marked money to Marcelino, who instructed Ronald to give the shabu. Ronald produced two plastic sachets from his pocket and handed them to Cardona, who then gave the pre-arranged signal. Arresting officers apprehended the accused-appellants. The seized items and accused were brought to the PDEA Office. SPO4 Cardona marked the sachets with “FTC-1” and “FTC-2” at the office. The sachets were submitted for examination the next day, with Chemistry Report No. D-089-03 confirming the contents as methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Accused-appellants were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs). The Regional Trial Court convicted them, sentencing each to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Accused-appellants denied the charges, claiming they were illegally arrested, mauled, and framed by CIDG operatives.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs).

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals Decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellants. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, which is crucial to proving the corpus delicti. Specifically:
1. Marking Not Immediately Done at the Seizure Site: The plastic sachets were marked only at the PDEA Office, not at the place of arrest, contrary to the requirement of immediate marking under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 to prevent switching or contamination.
2. Gaps in the Chain of Custody: There was no testimony on how the seized items were handled, stored, or transferred from the arrest site to the PDEA Office, and from the PDEA Office to the crime laboratory. SPO4 Cardona did not testify on who had custody of the drugs after he marked them or how they were preserved until laboratory examination.
3. Lack of Physical Inventory and Photographs: The buy-bust team did not conduct a physical inventory or take photographs of the seized items in the presence of accused-appellants or required witnesses, as mandated by law. While non-compliance may be excused under justifiable grounds, the prosecution did not offer any explanation for the lapses.
4. Failure to Prove Integrity and Identity of the Corpus Delicti: Due to the broken chain of custody, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were compromised. Thus, the identity of the corpus delicti was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty, and every link in the chain of custody must be accounted for. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot prevail over the constitutional right to be presumed innocent. Consequently, accused-appellants were acquitted and ordered immediately released unless held for another lawful cause.