GR 205695; (September, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 205695 . September 27, 2017
JESUS APARENTE Y VOCALAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Jesus Aparente was charged with illegal possession of 0.01 gram of shabu under Republic Act No. 9165 . Prosecution witnesses, police officers, testified that during a surveillance operation on February 13, 2006, they observed Aparente in an alley receiving a small plastic sachet from another man. Upon approach, Aparente fled but was apprehended. The officers claimed to have found the sachet in his hand. The seized item was later marked at the police station by an investigating officer and subsequently submitted to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Aparente denied the accusation, claiming that persons forcibly entered his home, handcuffed him, and planted the evidence.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug, particularly given the miniscule amount involved, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted Aparente. The Court emphasized that in cases involving miniscule quantities of narcotics, such as the 0.01 gram here, there is a heightened need for strict compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. The Court found a critical break in the chain. The apprehending officers did not immediately mark the seized sachet at the place of arrest or at the nearest police station, as required. Instead, the marking was done by an investigating officer at the police station, a deviation from the mandated procedure. The prosecution failed to offer any justifiable reason for this lapse. This failure, under the circumstances, cast reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti, as it compromised the assurance that the item presented in court was the same one seized from the accused. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional right to be presumed innocent and the prosecution’s burden to prove every element of the crime, including the identity of the dangerous drug, with moral certainty. Consequently, the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain a conviction.