G.R. No. 219855 . September 06, 2016.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO LINTAG Y LAUREOLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellant Romeo Lintag based on a tip about his brother’s drug activities. P03 Gloybell Dimacali acted as poseur-buyer. Upon meeting Lintag, Dimacali handed over a marked ₱500 bill. Lintag left briefly and returned with two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, which he gave to Dimacali. Upon consummation of the sale, Lintag was arrested. The seized items were marked at the police station and later submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Lintag presented a different version, claiming he was illegally arrested. He testified that policemen in plain clothes entered his house looking for his brother. After a fruitless search, they arrested him out of frustration. He denied any involvement in a drug sale and asserted that the contraband was planted. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 , a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved Lintag’s guilt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti through an unbroken chain of custody.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Romeo Lintag. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the State must prove not only the elements of the sale but also the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty. This requires an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the integrity of the evidence from seizure to presentation in court. The Court found a critical break in this chain. The arresting officers failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165, which requires the physical inventory and photographing of seized items immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused or his representative, an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice, and the media. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this non-compliance. The testimony revealed the inventory was conducted only at the police station, without the required witnesses. This procedural lapse cast reasonable doubt on whether the items presented in court were the same ones allegedly seized from Lintag. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s failure to account for the seized drugs properly. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were compromised, warranting acquittal.