GR 227497; (April, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 227497 April 10, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DIOSCORO COMOSO y TUREMUTSA, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Dioscoro Comoso was charged with illegal sale of marijuana under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted on March 26, 2005, in Puerto Princesa City. A police asset acted as poseur-buyer and purchased a plastic sachet from Comoso. Upon the asset’s signal, arresting officers PO2 Aquino and PO3 Fernandez apprehended Comoso. PO2 Aquino recovered the plastic sachet from the asset and marked it with his initials. The seized item was later submitted to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for marijuana. Comoso denied the accusation, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested while on his way home from selling fish.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Comoso, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court held that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was not fatal and that the chain of custody was sufficiently established despite the absence of photographs of the seized items during inventory. Comoso appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the integrity of the corpus delicti was compromised due to breaks in the chain of custody.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug, thereby proving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Comoso. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, which is crucial in proving the identity of the illegal drug with moral certainty. The Court emphasized that under Section 21 of RA 9165, the chain of custody includes the seizure, marking, inventory, and turnover of the drug to the forensic laboratory. Here, the inventory was conducted at the police station, not at the place of seizure, without any justifiable reason for this deviation. The required witnesses—an elected official, a media representative, and a Department of Justice official—were also absent during the inventory, and the prosecution offered no explanation for these lapses.
The legal logic is that these procedural gaps create reasonable doubt about whether the item presented in court was the same one seized from the accused. The identity of the corpus delicti is paramount in drug cases. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence when the procedures designed to prevent planting or contamination of evidence are not followed. Consequently, the prosecution did not prove Comoso’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting his acquittal.