GR 215712; (August, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 215712 . August 07, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CAROL T. YGOY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Carol T. Ygoy was charged with violations of Sections 5 (sale) and 12 (possession of paraphernalia) of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on March 28, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted against Ygoy in Cebu City. SPO1 Elmo Rosales, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from Ygoy using a marked PHP 100 bill. Upon the consummation of the sale, Ygoy was arrested. A search incidental to arrest allegedly yielded the buy-bust money from her pocket and various drug paraphernalia from her house.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Ygoy for illegal sale but acquitted her for possession of paraphernalia. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Ygoy appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug, thereby compromising its integrity as evidence.
ISSUE
Did the prosecution successfully establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug to prove the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Ygoy on the ground of reasonable doubt due to unexplained lapses in the chain of custody. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. This requires strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165, which mandates the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or her representative, an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice, and the media.
The records revealed critical procedural gaps. The apprehending officers failed to conduct the required physical inventory and photograph of the seized sachet immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the mandated witnesses. The prosecution offered no justification for this non-compliance. Furthermore, the testimony of the forensic chemist, P/Sr. Insp. Mutchit G. Salinas, revealed another break: he received the request for examination and the specimen from a duty clerk, not directly from the evidence custodian, and he could not confirm who delivered the items to the clerk. These unexplained lapses in the prescribed safeguards created reasonable doubt regarding the identity and integrity of the shabu presented in court. Consequently, the evidence of the corpus delicti was compromised, warranting acquittal.