GR 206398; (November, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 206398, November 05, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Jerry Jamila y Viray, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Acting on a tip, a buy-bust team was formed with PO3 Norman Villareal as the poseur-buyer. On September 30, 2008, the team proceeded to the target area in Muntinlupa City. PO3 Villareal and an informant approached the accused-appellant, Jerry Jamila, who was introduced as a seller of shabu. PO3 Villareal handed over marked money in exchange for a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. Upon receiving the item, PO3 Villareal gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to Jamila’s arrest. He was then brought to the police station.
At the police station, PO3 Villareal marked the confiscated plastic sachet with the initials “JJ”. The item was subjected to laboratory examination, which confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Consequently, an Information was filed charging Jamila with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The accused-appellant denied the charges, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested while drinking and that evidence was planted.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drug, thereby proving the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused-appellant. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. This requires an unbroken chain of custody, with immediate marking upon seizure being a crucial first link to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.
The Court found a critical break in this chain. The records and testimony of PO3 Villareal revealed that the marking of the seized plastic sachet was not done immediately at the place of arrest but only later at the police station. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this deviation from the procedure mandated under Section 21 of RA 9165. The Court, citing Candelaria v. People, ruled that immediate marking at the time of confiscation is indispensable. The failure to do so, without any explanation, compromised the identity of the evidence allegedly seized from the accused-appellant. Since the integrity of the corpus delicti was not preserved beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction could not stand.