GR 225210; (August, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 225210 . August 7, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LARRY SULTAN y ALMADA, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Larry Sultan was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that in a buy-bust operation, PO2 Hechanova purchased one sachet of shabu from Sultan and recovered three more sachets from his person. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at a barangay hall in the presence of local officials. The sachets were then submitted for laboratory examination, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Sultan denied the charges, claiming he was at a hotel to book a room when he was arrested after meeting a friend. He asserted that the police officers planted the evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs with moral certainty, complying with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 .
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Sultan. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, creating reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The Court emphasized that the procedure under Section 21 is crucial in drug cases to prevent tampering, planting, or contamination of evidence. Here, a critical gap existed in the chain. While PO2 Hechanova marked the seized items at the barangay hall, the prosecution did not present PO2 Albarico, the officer who received the evidence from the arresting officer and delivered it to the forensic chemist. This break was not explained or justified. The testimony of the forensic chemist, Chief Inspector Puentespina, regarding the receipt of the evidence from PO2 Albarico constituted hearsay, as he had no personal knowledge of its prior handling. The absence of this vital witness and the reliance on hearsay undermined the proof that the items examined were the same ones seized from Sultan. Consequently, the indispensable requirement of proving the identity of the dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt was not met. Any doubt in the corpus delicti must be resolved in favor of the accused, upholding the constitutional presumption of innocence.