GR 200165; (January, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 200165 ; January 30, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. REYNALDO NACUA, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Reynaldo Nacua and his common-law wife were charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs). The charge stemmed from a police operation involving a “test-buy” on September 2, 2005, where officers allegedly bought a sachet of shabu from the couple at their residence. This test-buy was conducted to establish probable cause for a search warrant application. A warrant was subsequently issued and implemented on September 21, 2005, leading to the seizure of various drug paraphernalia and seven plastic sachets containing shabu. The couple was arrested. The Regional Trial Court convicted Nacua, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Nacua’s guilt for the illegal sale of shabu beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and acquitted Nacua. The acquittal was anchored on the prosecution’s failure to establish the corpus delicti of the crime of sale with the requisite moral certainty. The Court clarified that the “test-buy” operation conducted on September 2, 2005, was not a buy-bust operation but an intelligence-gathering activity meant to support an application for a search warrant. Consequently, the sachet obtained from that test-buy constituted the very corpus delicti of the separate charge of illegal sale. For a conviction, the identity and integrity of this specific drug evidence must be proven with an unbroken chain of custody.
The prosecution failed this standard. First, there was a glaring absence of testimony regarding the management, storage, and handling of the sachet from the time it was examined at the crime laboratory after the test-buy up to its presentation in court. No evidence was offered to show who had custody of it and how its integrity was preserved during this extended period. This break in the chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to whether the evidence presented in court was the same item allegedly purchased from the accused. Without proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved, a conviction cannot stand. The items seized during the warranted search on September 21 were irrelevant to the specific charge of sale based on the September 2 transaction.