G.R. No. 242159 , February 05, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Dante Casilang y Rino and Silverio Vergara y Cortez, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Dante Casilang and Silverio Vergara were charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs). The prosecution alleged that on January 5, 2012, in Dagupan City, they sold one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing about 0.1 gram to a poseur-buyer, PO2 Jayson Cadawan, for P500.00 in a buy-bust operation. The operation was conducted by a team from the Provincial Intelligence Branch based on information from a confidential informant. After the transaction, accused-appellants were arrested. The seized item was marked by PO2 Cadawan at the scene, and an inventory and photographing were conducted at the police precinct in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Segundino Ayson. The item was then brought to the crime laboratory, where Forensic Chemist PSI Myrna Malojo-Todeño confirmed it was shabu. The defense interposed denial, claiming they were merely on a joyride on a tricycle when they were flagged down, searched, and arrested without cause, and later framed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellants despite alleged irregularities in the buy-bust operation and the prosecution’s failure to establish the identity and integrity of the confiscated drug (the corpus delicti).

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals Decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellants. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt due to substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug. The Court found that the apprehending officers did not comply with the mandatory procedures under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The required witnesses (a representative from the Department of Justice and the media) were not present during the inventory and photographing at the police precinct; only a barangay kagawad was present. The prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this non-compliance. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. There was no testimony on how the evidence was handled, stored, and transferred from the police precinct to the Provincial Intelligence Office and then to the crime laboratory. The testimony of the forensic chemist did not cover who delivered the item to the laboratory or its condition upon receipt. These lapses created reasonable doubt as to whether the item presented in court was the same one seized from accused-appellants. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody.