G.R. No. 258316 . November 20, 2023
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NORBERTO VERDADERO Y PIMENTEL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Norberto Verdadero was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that on September 27, 2017, a buy-bust operation in Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, led to his arrest after he sold a sachet of shabu to a poseur-buyer. Upon frisking, six more sachets were allegedly recovered from him. The seized items were brought to the police station where they were marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of barangay kagawads and a media representative, before being submitted for laboratory examination, which confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Accused-appellant claimed he was working at a farm when a policeman fetched him under the pretext that the police chief wanted to speak with him. Upon arrival at the station, he was detained and later forced by the police to point to and admit ownership of the drugs already laid out on a table. The defense emphasized that the inventory witnesses did not actually witness the seizure or the initial marking of the items at the place of arrest.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, particularly the crucial link of immediate marking at the place of seizure, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED accused-appellant. The Court anchored its decision on the prosecution’s fatal failure to comply with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 , specifically the requirement of immediate marking at the place of seizure. The legal logic is clear: the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti are preserved by establishing an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court. Marking upon immediate confiscation is the first critical link in this chain; it serves to separate the seized evidence from other material and prevent switching, contamination, or loss.
The records showed that the marking of the seven plastic sachets was not done at the place of arrest in Barangay Ganduz but only later at the police station in Pantabangan. The prosecution offered no justifiable ground for this deviation. This procedural lapse created a significant gap in the chain of custody at its very inception. Without the immediate marking, the identity of the drugs allegedly seized from accused-appellant was rendered doubtful. The subsequent inventory and laboratory examination, though witnessed by required persons, were tainted by this initial break. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove with moral certainty that the drugs presented in court were the same ones allegedly taken from the accused. Any doubt in the chain of custody translates to reasonable doubt on guilt, mandating acquittal. The Court reiterated that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure is paramount, especially in drug cases where the evidence is susceptible to tampering.