G.R. No. 233200, September 09, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CARMELO CARPIO y TARROZA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Carmelo Carpio y Tarroza was charged with violations of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession) of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The prosecution evidence established that on August 20, 2004, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Zamboanga City. SPO1 Sergio Rivera, acting as poseur-buyer, bought one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from Carpio using a marked P100 bill. Upon arrest, two more similar sachets and the marked money were recovered from Carpio’s right pocket. SPO1 Rivera kept the seized sachets in his pocket until they reached the police station, where he marked them with his initials “SMR” in the presence of an investigator. The substances were confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The defense claimed the arrest was a frame-up due to a debt related to a cockfighting bet. The Regional Trial Court convicted Carpio, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the convictions despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, thereby failing to establish the corpus delicti with moral certainty.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision and acquitted the accused-appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. Specifically, the apprehending officers did not immediately mark the seized sachets at the place of arrest, as required by Section 21. The marking was done only at the police station without any justifiable reason for the deviation. SPO1 Rivera’s act of placing the seized items in his pocket without immediate marking compromised their integrity from the very first link of the chain. The prosecution did not offer any explanation for this procedural lapse. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot apply where there was a clear disregard of the mandatory procedural safeguards. The appeal opened the entire case for review, and the Court corrected the grave errors committed by the lower courts.