G.R. No. 235658 , June 22, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Raul Del Rosario y Niebres, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Raul Del Rosario y Niebres was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on April 21, 2008, in Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimony of SPO1 Apolonio Naredo, was that a confidential informant acted as poseur-buyer and bought one plastic sachet of shabu from appellant using marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, SPO1 Naredo arrested appellant, recovered the marked money, and conducted a preventive search where appellant yielded three more plastic sachets. The seized items were marked, and a request for laboratory examination was made. The items were turned over to the crime laboratory by PO1 Richard Cruz to a certain SPO1 Agustin. Forensic Chemist Lalaine Ong Rodrigo examined the sachets, found them positive for shabu, and placed her markings on them. The defense presented a different version, claiming appellant was resting in his hut when two men suddenly arrived, restrained him, searched his hut, and brought him to a barangay hall where he was forced to sign a document. He was later shown a plastic sachet and money and informed of the charges. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found appellant guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA ruled that the prosecution established all elements of the crimes and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved despite non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 , noting the chain of custody remained unbroken.

ISSUE

Whether or not the guilt of appellant for the offenses charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA Decision and ACQUITTED appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, which compromised their integrity and evidentiary value. Specifically, the Court identified a broken link in the chain: the prosecution did not establish who received the evidence at the crime laboratory. While the evidence was turned over by PO1 Cruz to a certain SPO1 Agustin, there was no testimony from SPO1 Agustin or any document, such as a receipt or acknowledgment, confirming the transfer. Forensic Chemist Rodrigo also did not testify as to who delivered the specimens to her. This gap created reasonable doubt as to whether the items examined were the same ones seized from appellant. The Court emphasized that the State must account for each link in the chain of custody, and the justifying reasons for any deviation from the procedural requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 must be proven as a fact. The apprehending officers did not offer any justification for their failure to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the required witnesses. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot prevail over the constitutional right to be presumed innocent and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, appellant was acquitted and ordered immediately released.