G.R. No. 216062 September 19, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. HILARIO NEPOMUCENO y VISAYA @ “BOK”, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Hilario Nepomuceno, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila for violations of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11(3) (Illegal Possession) of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution’s narrative was that a buy-bust operation was conducted on February 21, 2008, in Manila. A police officer acted as a poseur-buyer and purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from Nepomuceno for PHP 300.00. Upon arrest, another sachet was allegedly recovered from him. The RTC found the testimonies of the police officers credible and convicted Nepomuceno, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine for illegal sale, and an indeterminate prison term for illegal possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
Nepomuceno, however, presented a starkly different version. He claimed he was merely on his way home from work when he was accosted by men on a motorcycle and later by other men in a car. He was invited to the police station for questioning, detained without explanation, and only later discovered he was being charged as a drug pusher. He insisted no illegal drugs were ever recovered from his person.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the decisions of the lower courts and ACQUITTED the accused-appellant. The Court anchored its ruling on the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, which is crucial in proving the corpus delicti of the offenses. The police officers committed unjustified deviations from the strict procedural requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The marking of the seized items—a critical first step in the chain of custody—was not done immediately at the place of arrest. The officers testified they brought Nepomuceno to the police station first before marking the evidence, citing a commotion at the scene. The Court found this justification insufficient, as the officers did not even attempt to mark the items at the nearest available location, like their police vehicle, to prevent evidence switching or contamination.
Furthermore, the prosecution failed to account for who had custody of the drugs from the time of seizure at the scene until their marking at the station, creating a significant gap. The Court emphasized that while minor procedural lapses may be excused, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items must be shown to have been preserved. Here, the broken chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to whether the items presented in court were the same ones allegedly seized from Nepomuceno. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were not proven with moral certainty. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which it failed to discharge.