GR 206766; (April, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 206766. April 6, 2016.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDUARDO YEPES, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Eduardo Yepes was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) for allegedly selling one heat-sealed plastic sachet of shabu to PO1 Ervin Ariño in a buy-bust operation on July 29, 2004, in Catbalogan City. The prosecution presented police officers who testified on the operation: PO2 Ariño acted as poseur-buyer and claimed he gave marked money to Yepes in exchange for a sachet; PO2 Lapura witnessed the exchange from a distance and later arrested Yepes; SPO4 dela Cruz received the sachets and conducted a field test; and PO3 Ilagan, as evidence custodian, marked and submitted the evidence to the PDEA. P/S Insp. Cruto confirmed the substance was shabu. Yepes denied the accusation, testifying that he was framed by a police asset named Lagrimas and that the police attempted to plant evidence on him and coerce him into conducting a buy-bust operation. The Regional Trial Court convicted Yepes, imposing life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification. Yepes appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the shabu was planted and the police failed to follow proper procedures in handling the seized drugs.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Eduardo Yepes for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals’ decision and ACQUITTED Eduardo Yepes. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to serious lapses in the buy-bust operation and the handling of the seized drugs. The police officers did not comply with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which requires the 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. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this non-compliance. Furthermore, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and insufficient to establish the corpus delicti with unwavering exactitude. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence when the prosecution’s evidence is flawed. Consequently, the elements of illegal sale of drugs were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.