G.R. No. 218401, September 24, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JANET PEROMINGAN y GEROCHE, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Janet Peromingan was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on July 1, 2008, in Tondo, Manila, a police team, acting on an anonymous tip, conducted a buy-bust operation. Poseur-buyer SPO3 Rolando Del Rosario testified that upon arriving at the location, Peromingan approached and asked “Kukuha ka?” He handed her a marked P200 bill, and she gave him a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which was later confirmed to be shabu. The defense presented a starkly different version. Peromingan testified that she was a laundrywoman who, while walking with her son, was forcibly taken by men in civilian attire to the police station. There, she was detained and asked for a P150,000 bribe in exchange for her freedom, and the drug charge was fabricated when she could not pay.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, particularly in establishing the integrity and identity of the seized drug.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Peromingan. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the State must prove not only the occurrence of the sale but, with equal importance, the identity of the prohibited drug through an unbroken chain of custody. This is crucial as the drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense. The Court found the police officers committed significant lapses in complying with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165. SPO3 Del Rosario, the arresting officer and poseur-buyer, marked the seized sachet at the police station, not immediately at the place of arrest. There was no testimony or evidence showing that the required physical inventory and photograph of the seized item were conducted in the presence of the accused or any representative from the media, the Department of Justice, or an elected public official. The prosecution merely offered the inventory sheet as an exhibit without providing any testimony on its execution, rendering it hearsay. These procedural gaps created reasonable doubt regarding whether the item presented in court was the same one allegedly seized from Peromingan. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence, especially when the prosecution’s evidence is riddled with irregularities. Consequently, the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence, warranting acquittal.