G.R. No. 237120 , June 26, 2024
ALEX BESENIO Y CLEDORO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Alex Besenio y Cledoro was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The Information alleged that on August 24, 2006, in Baao, Camarines Sur, he was found in possession of 0.1 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu.” The charge stemmed from the implementation of Search Warrant No. 06-13 at his residence by a police team, which included Senior Inspector Ricardo Arce and PO2 Andrew J. Alcomendas. The search, witnessed by barangay officials, yielded a heat-sealed plastic sachet of suspected shabu from a room in the house. PO2 Alcomendas marked the sachet with his initials “AJA” at the place of confiscation. An inventory was conducted and a Certificate of Inventory was signed by the accused and the barangay officials. Besenio was arrested and brought to the police station where a separate Certificate of Inventory was prepared and signed by a media representative and a municipal councilor; no DOJ representative was present as it was early morning. The seized item was submitted to the issuing court, then withdrawn and delivered to the crime laboratory. The forensic chemist, Police Inspector Richard Severo, after qualitative examination, confirmed the substance was shabu. Besenio pleaded not guilty and raised the defenses of denial and frame-up. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, sentencing him to imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that despite deviations from the chain of custody rule (specifically the absence of a DOJ representative during inventory), the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. Besenio’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied, prompting this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction despite alleged breaches in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the decisions of the lower courts. It held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, thereby creating reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The Court emphasized that in illegal drugs cases, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the dangerous drug through strict compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165. The Court identified critical lapses in the first and third links of the chain. For the first link (seizure and marking), while the marking was done immediately at the place of confiscation in the presence of the accused, the required witnesses for the inventory and photographing were not all present. Specifically, no representative from the Department of Justice was present during the inventory conducted at the police station, and no justifiable ground for this absence was offered by the prosecution. For the third link (turnover to the forensic chemist), the prosecution failed to present the testimony of the evidence clerk, Rosemarie P. Llona, who received the item from the police and turned it over to the forensic chemist. This created a gap in the custody trail, as the forensic chemist could only testify to receiving the item from the clerk, not directly from the arresting officer. The Court ruled that these unexplained breaches compromised the integrity of the seized item. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty could not apply due to these irregularities. Consequently, Besenio’s conviction was overturned, and he was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.