G.R. No. 212635 . March 25, 2015.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHARLIE SORINY TAGAYLO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Charlie Sorin y Tagaylo was charged with violating Sections 5 and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The prosecution alleged that on November 2, 2005, a buy-bust team was formed after a prior test-buy operation. Poseur-buyers PO2 Edgardo Dador and PO1 Sonny Adams Cambangay, using marked money, bought two sachets of shabu from Sorin at his residence. After the transaction, Sorin was arrested. The seized items were turned over to SPO1 Graciano Mugot, Jr. at the police station, who marked them, prepared an inventory and request for laboratory examination, and sent them to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Sorin’s hands and the marked money tested positive for ultraviolet fluorescent powder, and his urine tested positive for shabu. Sorin denied the allegations, claiming the police forcibly entered his house, planted the evidence, and compelled him to sign a waiver for the urine test. He presented witnesses who testified about the destroyed door and the forcible entry. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Sorin for violating Section 5 (sale of dangerous drugs) but acquitted him for violating Section 15 (use of dangerous drugs) due to inadmissible urine test results obtained without counsel. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction. Sorin appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not Sorin’s conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision and acquitted Sorin. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, which is crucial to proving the corpus delicti. The Court noted several breaks in the chain: (1) PO2 Dador, the poseur-buyer who seized the drugs, did not immediately mark them at the place of arrest but only turned them over to SPO1 Mugot at the police station. (2) There was no testimony on how SPO1 Mugot handled and preserved the drugs from receipt until their delivery to the laboratory. (3) The required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 (a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and an elected public official) were not present during the inventory and photographing of the seized items. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this non-compliance. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The lapses in the chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. Therefore, Sorin’s conviction was overturned, and he was acquitted.