G.R. No. 229219 , November 21, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RODERICK LAZARO Y FLORES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Roderick Lazaro was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on January 4, 2008, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Dagupan City. PO2 Michael De Vera acted as poseur-buyer and handed marked money to Lazaro in exchange for one plastic sachet of suspected shabu. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the backup team arrested Lazaro and recovered the buy-bust money. The seized item was brought to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court convicted Lazaro, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification regarding parole eligibility.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Lazaro testified that he was having a drinking session at his house when police officers suddenly barged in, arrested him without explanation, and brought him to the police station where he was shown the alleged drugs. His friend, Julio Viray, corroborated this account, stating that Lazaro was forcibly arrested without any buy-bust transaction taking place. Lazaro appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and identity of the seized drugs due to lapses in the chain of custody.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Lazaro’s conviction by finding that the prosecution established his guilt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted Roderick Lazaro. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug constituting the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. This requires an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the integrity of the evidence from seizure to presentation in court, thereby obviating risks of switching, planting, or contamination.
The Court found the prosecution’s evidence fatally deficient. While the buy-bust team prepared a Confiscation Receipt at the scene, there was a glaring absence of any testimony or documentation showing that the required physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs were conducted in the presence of Lazaro or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official, as mandated by Section 21 of RA 9165. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this non-compliance. The law requires the insulating presence of these witnesses to remove any suspicion of tampering and to preserve the evidence’s integrity. Their absence, unexplained by the state, breached the chain of custody protocol. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence prevails, and any doubt is resolved in favor of the accused.