G.R. No. 216725 February 18, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ROGELIO YAGAO y LLABAN, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rogelio Yagao was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on August 1, 2006, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Cagayan de Oro City. A confidential informant and police officers approached Yagao. The informant handed marked money to Yagao, who in turn produced a plastic sachet containing dried marijuana leaves from his pocket, leading to his arrest. The seized item was marked at the police station and later examined by a forensic chemist, who confirmed it was marijuana.
Yagao denied the allegations, claiming he was framed. He testified that he was at his house for a family celebration when he was accosted by men who forcibly brought him to the police station, where he first saw the alleged drugs and marked money. The Regional Trial Court convicted Yagao, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the sale and to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drug.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Yagao. The Court emphasized that for a successful prosecution of illegal sale, two critical elements must be proven: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and the delivery of the drug and payment. The act of delivery is the consummating act. Here, the testimonies of the police officers were inconsistent and insufficient to prove delivery. PO2 Yasay testified that the informant handed the money to Yagao, who then took the drugs from his pocket. However, PO2 Deloso testified that it was Yagao who initiated the transaction by asking “how much?” and then received the money. These material inconsistencies cast doubt on the actual occurrence of a consummated sale.
Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The officer who received and marked the seized item at the station, PO2 Sagun, was never presented in court to testify. His absence created a significant gap in the chain, as there was no testimony on how he handled, preserved, and transferred the evidence from the arrest site to the laboratory. This failure compromised the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. Given the doubts surrounding the alleged sale and the broken chain of custody, the guilt of the accused was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.