G.R. No. 220451 , February 26, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ALLAN BUGTONG y AMOROSO, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Allan Bugtong was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on January 10, 2009, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Roxas City where SPO1 Ma. Nanette Puasan, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased one sachet of suspected shabu from Bugtong using marked money. Upon consummation of the sale, the arresting team apprehended Bugtong and recovered the marked bills. SPO1 Puasan immediately marked the seized sachet with “AB” at the scene. The following day, she personally delivered the item to the crime laboratory, where Forensic Chemist P/Supt. Angela Baldevieso confirmed it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming Bugtong was arbitrarily arrested while on his way to fetch his son. He testified that police officers PO3 Paulin and PO2 Ibañez accosted him, searched him, and brought him to the station where he was framed. The Regional Trial Court found Bugtong guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Both courts credited the police officers’ testimonies and found the chain of custody over the seized drug to be intact.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drug, thereby proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the appellate court’s decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Allan Bugtong. The Court emphasized that in drug-related prosecutions, the State must prove with moral certainty the identity of the prohibited drug, which is the corpus delicti of the offense. This requires an unbroken chain of custody under Section 21 of RA 9165, ensuring the item seized is the same one presented in court.
The Court found critical lapses in the prescribed chain of custody procedure. First, while the marking by SPO1 Puasan at the scene was timely, the required physical inventory and photographing of the seized evidence were not conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official, as mandated. Second, there was a significant gap in the chain during the turnover to the crime laboratory. SPO1 Puasan testified she handed the item to a certain PO1 Cachila, who logged it before giving it to the forensic chemist. However, PO1 Cachila was not presented in court to testify on this crucial transfer, creating a missing link. The forensic chemist could only account for receiving the item from PO1 Cachila, not from the arresting officer directly. These procedural breaches compromised the integrity of the evidence, raising reasonable doubt on whether the item presented in court was the same one allegedly bought from Bugtong. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence when the integrity of the corpus delicti is compromised. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.