G.R. No. 206767, September 11, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Orlando Ramos Ordiz, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Orlando Ramos Ordiz was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for allegedly selling 0.03 gram of shabu in a buy-bust operation on October 3, 2004, in Cebu City. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of SPO1 Narciso Ursal, Jr., PO2 Raniel Capangpangan, and SPO1 Rene Cerna, stated that SPO1 Cerna acted as a poseur-buyer and purchased shabu from Ordiz, after which Ordiz was arrested. The substance was confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense claimed frame-up, alleging Ordiz was arrested in connection with a different incident, assaulted at the police station, and extorted for money. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Ordiz guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellant Orlando Ramos Ordiz is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Orlando Ramos Ordiz. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to two main reasons: First, the evidence was insufficient to establish the essential elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were unclear and uncorroborated; SPO1 Ursal, Jr. and PO2 Capangpangan did not witness the actual transaction, and the RTC itself noted that the testimony of the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Cerna, lacked clear details on direct examination and remained uncorroborated. Reliance on an uncorroborated poseur-buyer testimony does not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Second, there was blatant non-compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165. The prosecution failed to establish the crucial links in the chain, particularly the immediate marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized drug in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official, as required by law. The absence of these witnesses was not justified, and no physical inventory or photograph of the seized item was presented in evidence. This failure compromised the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, the presumption of innocence prevails, and Ordiz is acquitted.