GR 229720; (August, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 229720. August 19, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MELVIN DUNGO Y OCAMPO, APPELLANT.
FACTS
A buy-bust operation was conducted against appellant Melvin Dungo based on a tip from a confidential informant. PO2 Jamil Lugtu acted as poseur-buyer and handed a marked P500 bill to Dungo, who gave two plastic sachets of suspected shabu. Upon the pre-arranged signal, PO3 Jason Canda arrested Dungo. The seized items were marked at the scene and later turned over to the investigator. The substance was confirmed as methylamphetamine hydrochloride by the crime laboratory. Dungo denied the allegations, claiming he was simply apprehended at his workplace and that no buy-bust occurred.
The prosecution presented the testimony of the apprehending officers and the forensic chemist, PCI Angel Timario. However, during clarificatory questioning, PCI Timario admitted he had “no knowledge as to whether the sachets of shabu with markings JBL-1 and JBL-2 were the ones particularly sold by [Dungo] in the instant case.” The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted Dungo, finding the chain of custody of evidence to be intact.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved Dungo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court acquitted Dungo due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, creating reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be proven with moral certainty. A critical break occurred in the chain when the forensic chemist, PCI Timario, could not confirm that the items he examined were the same ones seized from Dungo. This admission directly undermined the crucial link between the evidence presented in court and the evidence allegedly obtained from the accused.
Furthermore, the police failed to strictly comply with the chain of custody procedures under Section 21 of RA 9165. The required witnesses from the Department of Justice and media were not present at the time of seizure and marking but only signed the inventory later at the police station. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this procedural lapse. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The breaks in the chain of custody, particularly the chemist’s admission, left the identity of the dangerous drug in serious doubt, warranting acquittal.