G.R. No. 213919 , June 15, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. VIRGILIO A. QUIM, APPELLANT.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging appellant Virgilio A. Quim with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs). It was alleged that on April 3, 2004, in Carcar, Cebu, he sold and delivered 0.04 gram of shabu to a poseur buyer for P100.00 in a buy-bust operation. Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented PO2 Jose Yamasaki Repompo as its lone witness. He testified that after a confirmed report, a team including a civilian asset as poseur buyer conducted a buy-bust operation. From a distance of 10 to 15 meters, he saw the poseur buyer hand marked money to appellant, who then gave one packet of shabu. Appellant was arrested, and the marked money was recovered. SPO1 Navales marked the seized item “VAQ-1.” The item tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented five witnesses: appellant, his wife Asuncion, daughter Darlene, son Gerard, and barangay official Evelyn Lapenia. They testified that on the said date, appellant and his son were fixing a fluorescent lamp outside their house when policemen arrived. Some officers entered the house, poked a gun at Darlene, and searched the bedrooms multiple times but found nothing. Appellant claimed the operation was a ruse to recover a firearm allegedly pledged to him, which he no longer possessed. He testified that after barangay officials arrived, Police Officer Avila arrived with a handcuffed neighbor and threw a blue plastic bag on a table. SPO1 Navales then listed the contents of the bag and asked appellant to sign, which he refused.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of the crime charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P400,000 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but increased the fine to P500,000.

ISSUE

Whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ACQUITTED appellant Virgilio A. Quim based on reasonable doubt.
The Court found the appeal meritorious. Appellant’s conviction rested solely on the testimony of PO2 Repompo, who claimed to have witnessed the transaction from 10 to 15 meters away. The Court found it incredible that he could clearly see the exchange of a small plastic packet and money from that distance, especially while allegedly stooping down in a banana plantation. The testimony lacked the requisite clarity and detail to establish the identity of the buyer and the specifics of the sale.
Crucially, the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti—the illegal drug—with moral certainty. The chain of custody was broken. PO2 Repompo testified that he was the one who delivered the seized item to the crime laboratory. However, the forensic chemist testified that she received the specimen from a different officer, PO3 Avila. This discrepancy created reasonable doubt as to whether the item presented in court was the same one allegedly seized from appellant. The prosecution did not offer any explanation for this inconsistency or call PO3 Avila to testify. The mandatory procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 for the custody and disposition of seized drugs was not complied with, compromising the integrity of the evidence.
Furthermore, the defense’s version of events—that the police were motivated to arrest appellant over a pledged firearm and that the drugs were planted—was not successfully rebutted by the prosecution. Given the broken chain of custody and the doubtful eyewitness account, the guilt of the appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ordered his immediate release unless detained for another lawful cause.